IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th January 2021, 03:54 PM   #81
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Of course it will crash eventually. The sell-off is going to be brutal for a lot of the late-comers who bought in at the highs. There’s no question about that.

The real question is how long can the average retail investor hold on with all their money on this one stock hoping for a moon shot? Can they hold out long enough to really put the real squeeze on all the shorts? I don’t think so. The Big Boys in all this have the resources to out-wait them. Once the Little Guys start panicking, that’s when the real short-sell opportunities will arise and the Big Boys who are still standing will end up making a killing. If this thing gets to $500...$1000? It won’t be long before the evil temptation to take profit overcomes the Little Guys, principles be damned, and the Big Boys will clean up.

If I had the money, I might think about shorting GME soon...
I was looking at buying PUTS, but man they're expensive. Like $35 for $100 February strikes. Meaning the stock would need to fall to $65 to just break even. I don't even know what I'd need to do to actually sell short and I'm not really willing to do it anyways.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 04:03 PM   #82
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
If you can clarify some of the timing on this prediction we can translate that into an investment position and get you in on the action.
There's a classic phrase along the lines of:

Irrational exuberance (an overpriced stock) can last longer than your bank account.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 04:57 PM   #83
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 26,535
Case in point. Allegedly, the WSB subreddit went private about 20 minutes ago, and the Discord was either banned or deleted.

Now watch the pumped stocks fall.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 27th January 2021 at 05:01 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 06:05 PM   #84
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,970
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I have no idea what to make of this, but it is objectively hilarious that hedge fund ghouls are looking to lose their shirts to a bunch of keyboard warriors.
Does anyone know who the "ghouls" actually are? Hedge funds manage money for a lot of people and not everyone in a hedge fund is a member of the 1%. Who actually are they trying to drive in to bankruptcy and does this scheme actually target the people they want to?

Hedge funds do tend to attract the richer investors, but still I wonder if these people aren't risking their own money to "take down" other investors who aren't much different than themselves.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 27th January 2021 at 06:07 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 06:16 PM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
All this reinforces my view that justice is about people's need for retribution.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:08 PM   #86
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Does anyone know who the "ghouls" actually are? Hedge funds manage money for a lot of people and not everyone in a hedge fund is a member of the 1%. Who actually are they trying to drive in to bankruptcy and does this scheme actually target the people they want to?

Hedge funds do tend to attract the richer investors, but still I wonder if these people aren't risking their own money to "take down" other investors who aren't much different than themselves.
Generally speaking no, the low and middle class cannot invest in hedge funds.

https://smartasset.com/investing/how...n-a-hedge-fund

You do realize that Melvin Capital was trying to drive Gamestop into liquidation. That's the end game of selling short more than their total market cap. I wouldn't feel sorry for them.

FYI, and eta: what Melvin was doing is a "zero sum" game. For every dollar made shorting, someone else lost a dollar. That's different than buying shares.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 27th January 2021 at 08:22 PM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:16 PM   #87
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,422
Here's a question that, personal opinion, isn't addressed enough in the legal concept of "intent."

Is there a reasonable assumption of "under currant and accepted motivations" when talking about intent?

That probably didn't make much sense, but look at it this way.

The SEC will (near as I can tell. Financial law is stupidly massively complex obvious caveat here) have to prove that r/wallstreetbets intentionally spread false information with the intent to get people to buy/sell stocks in order to really get firm traction on any direct legal reprisals.

Is it... dishonest (in the legal sense mostly, although of course broader discussions are to be had as well) to tell people to buy/sell stocks without lying if your intent isn't for them to make money.

I mean if you went to your doctor for medical advice and he said "Oh yeah smoke a pack a day, lift with your knees, and get more transfats in your diet" I doubt the Medical Board would be overly impressed with a "Well he never specified getting healthier and living longer was his goal." That's a reasonable assumption for someone seeking medical advice from a Doctor.

Same thing here, sorta. Is it reasonable to assume that "financial advice" already has the "I want to make money, not loss it" modifier in there, so even if you aren't lying in the sense of spreading false facts about an individual stock could maybe be a problem.

There's a B-plot in a Tom Clancy novel where Japan takes advantage of this. They pay off a disgruntled worker at a major financial firm to plant a logic bomb in the trading software of one of the big movies and shakers (hinted at but not directly said to be Merril Lynch in the novel) that causes a market panic by intentionally buying up massive amounts of worthless stock. All the automatic safeguards don't work because they were designed around the idea that someone would be making too much money, not that everyone would be losing too much.

Too Long; Didn't Read can you really defend yourself from causing massive financial damage with the defense of "Well we never said we wanted to make money."

Hopefully that flowed. What I was trying to say made sense in my head but I'm not sure if I really explained it well.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:19 PM   #88
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's a question that, personal opinion, isn't addressed enough in the legal concept of "intent."

Is there a reasonable assumption of "under currant and accepted motivations" when talking about intent?

That probably didn't make much sense, but look at it this way.

The SEC will (near as I can tell. Financial law is stupidly massively complex obvious caveat here) have to prove that r/wallstreetbets intentionally spread false information with the intent to get people to buy/sell stocks in order to really get firm traction on any direct legal reprisals.

Is it... dishonest (in the legal sense mostly, although of course broader discussions are to be had as well) to tell people to buy/sell stocks without lying if your intent isn't for them to make money.

I mean if you went to your doctor for medical advice and he said "Oh yeah smoke a pack a day, lift with your knees, and get more transfats in your diet" I doubt the Medical Board would be overly impressed with a "Well he never specified getting healthier and living longer was his goal." That's a reasonable assumption for someone seeking medical advice from a Doctor.

Same thing here, sorta. Is it reasonable to assume that "financial advice" already has the "I want to make money, not loss it" modifier in there, so even if you aren't lying in the sense of spreading false facts about an individual stock could maybe be a problem.

There's a B-plot in a Tom Clancy novel where Japan takes advantage of this. They pay off a disgruntled worker at a major financial firm to plant a logic bomb in the trading software of one of the big movies and shakers (hinted at but not directly said to be Merril Lynch in the novel) that causes a market panic by intentionally buying up massive amounts of worthless stock. All the automatic safeguards don't work because they were designed around the idea that someone would be making too much money, not that everyone would be losing too much.

Too Long; Didn't Read can you really defend yourself from causing massive financial damage with the defense of "Well we never said we wanted to make money."

Hopefully that flowed. What I was trying to say made sense in my head but I'm not sure if I really explained it well.
Your comparison is flawed. A doctor is licensed, they take an oath. The people of WSB are self described "tards". They are laymen. Now if any of them are licensed fiduciarys, the you'd have a point
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:24 PM   #89
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,422
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Your comparison is flawed. A doctor is licensed, they take an oath. The people of WSB are self described "tards". They are laymen. Now if any of them are licensed fiduciarys, the you'd have a point
I'd wager if you matched up all the members of r/wallstreetbets up against their real offline selves, you'd have at least a few actual stock brokers.

I mean you're not wrong, but there has to be some point at which "official" people got involved in this.

But I guess brokers don't have a responsibility to tell their clients what to buy and sell, even if they can see consequences coming.

*Shrugs* Sorry mostly just thinking out loud a little.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:25 PM   #90
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,422
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I wouldn't feel sorry for them.
We can have concerns/questions about this without "feeling sorry" for any of the people involved in it.

Especially since the main point seems to be "This is happening behind closed doors in secret all the time, look how absolutely absurd it looks done out in the open."
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:46 PM   #91
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The SEC will (near as I can tell. Financial law is stupidly massively complex obvious caveat here) have to prove that r/wallstreetbets intentionally spread false information with the intent to get people to buy/sell stocks in order to really get firm traction on any direct legal reprisals.

Is it... dishonest (in the legal sense mostly, although of course broader discussions are to be had as well) to tell people to buy/sell stocks without lying if your intent isn't for them to make money.
Financial advisers and stock brokers have legal obligations and telling clients to buy a stock with no expectation they will make money does violate that. And posting false information that a company is being acquired while secretly making money on opposing trades is illegal as is trading on inside information of actual M&A.

But simply saying something like "screw the shorts, lets all by stock X" would be legal. There is no misrepresentation or dissemination of false information to manipulate the market. It is, of course, likely to lead to a lot of people losing a lot of money but that's a different issue unaddressed in current law.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 08:55 PM   #92
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by marting View Post
Financial advisers and stock brokers have legal obligations and telling clients to buy a stock with no expectation they will make money does violate that. And posting false information that a company is being acquired while secretly making money on opposing trades is illegal as is trading on inside information of actual M&A.

But simply saying something like "screw the shorts, lets all by stock X" would be legal. There is no misrepresentation or dissemination of false information to manipulate the market. It is, of course, likely to lead to a lot of people losing a lot of money but that's a different issue unaddressed in current law.
I cannot see any possible legislation in the USA prohibiting a group of people getting together and exhorting others to buy shares in a company, that would not obviously fall afoul of 1st amendment protections.

Eta: and if they did, how on earth would it be written so that social media sites can't... But pundits like Jim Cramer can tell you what stocks to buy?

Last edited by lobosrul5; 27th January 2021 at 08:59 PM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:21 PM   #93
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I cannot see any possible legislation in the USA prohibiting a group of people getting together and exhorting others to buy shares in a company, that would not obviously fall afoul of 1st amendment protections.
Exactly so. What would be possible is increased regulation on the trading side. There are some limited regulations currently such as the stock market circuit breakers that impose cooling off periods. But the speech alone can't be regulated.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:24 PM   #94
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 26,535
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Generally speaking no, the low and middle class cannot invest in hedge funds.
Citadel, which happens to be the primary purchaser for orders through Robin Hood, can though. Evidently, while internetters have been buying GameStop shares through the Robin Hood app, Citadel has begun turning their money around and buying Melvin at rock-bottom. They know how this is most likely going to end.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:25 PM   #95
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Theres apparently nothing wrong with a hedge fund manager that shorts a struggling company’s stock then goes on CNBC and tells everyone what a dog that stock is -even though they have a financial interest in people selling the stock. Therefore, there’s nothing wrong with a bunch of people seeing an opportunity to squeeze the short sellers and going on social media to tell others about it -even though they have a financial interest in people buying the stock.

As long as no one is making false or misleading statements, it’s all good.

I think if the SEC or other authority takes action to stop this somehow, by threatening people into silence, halting trading, etc, we haven’t even begun to see the fury of the WSB crowd.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:41 PM   #96
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Theres apparently nothing wrong with a hedge fund manager that shorts a struggling company’s stock then goes on CNBC and tells everyone what a dog that stock is -even though they have a financial interest in people selling the stock. Therefore, there’s nothing wrong with a bunch of people seeing an opportunity to squeeze the short sellers and going on social media to tell others about it -even though they have a financial interest in people buying the stock.

As long as no one is making false or misleading statements, it’s all good.

I think if the SEC or other authority takes action to stop this somehow, by threatening people into silence, halting trading, etc, we haven’t even begun to see the fury of the WSB crowd.
Right. But don't worry about the SEC. While a lot of ignorant people will make a lot of noise, SEC regulations and enabling laws are almost entirely about disclosure. A company can be near bankruptcy but have stock trading with a company valuation of billions and the SEC can't do a thing other than make sure the company's filings accurately reflect it's financial situation. If people trade stocks like playing slot machines it's on them. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:41 PM   #97
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,928
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I was looking at buying PUTS, but man they're expensive. Like $35 for $100 February strikes. Meaning the stock would need to fall to $65 to just break even. I don't even know what I'd need to do to actually sell short and I'm not really willing to do it anyways.
Same here, there was nothing that looked even remotely attractive.

Years ago, I made what for me at the time was a big upside bet on Spongetech and got out the next day with a good profit, but I felt sick the whole time. Many of the investors were incredibly deluded, and there were probably lots like me who were depending on the bigger idiots.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:52 PM   #98
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,307
The way I understand options is that it is a license to buy or sell a certain stock at a certain price for a certain period of time.

I just heard on MSNBC that the hedge funds lost 14.5 billion dollars today on the Gamestop stock.

Am I missing something, did some of the options expire today or was this a paper loss?

Off to google to see if I am missing something or not.

But if the little guys can keep the stock price up until the hedge funds options expire and become worthless, well, I tip my hat.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:54 PM   #99
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,194
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
The way I understand options is that it is a license to buy or sell a certain stock at a certain price for a certain period of time.

I just heard on MSNBC that the hedge funds lost 14.5 billion dollars today on the Gamestop stock.

Am I missing something, did some of the options expire today or was this a paper loss?

Off to google to see if I am missing something or not.

But if the little guys can keep the stock price up until the hedge funds options expire and become worthless, well, I tip my hat.
I know CNBC (you said MSNBC) said they have closed their position. So, yes its a paper loss. And actually, when you buy puts you just get cash when they expire, assuming the underlying asset is under the strike price. Its only calls where you get the stock, commodity, etc.

FYI, I messed around with options a number of years ago, and got burned badly.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 27th January 2021 at 09:56 PM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 10:19 PM   #100
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,307
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I know CNBC (you said MSNBC) said they have closed their position. So, yes its a paper loss. And actually, when you buy puts you just get cash when they expire, assuming the underlying asset is under the strike price. Its only calls where you get the stock, commodity, etc.

FYI, I messed around with options a number of years ago, and got burned badly.
I checked the options for Gamestop

https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quot...n=2023-01-20-m

Looks like options expire every Friday for that stock.

Short sellers might be taking it in the shorts.

I am rooting for Gamestock and the little guys, no guts to put any money on the line.

If I wouldn't buy Apple at 400, Gamestop is a no go, I'll stick to mutual funds.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 11:00 PM   #101
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 797
Is what i see accurate in that gme stock is still shorted 137%.. Kind of feels like as one shark backs off another is willing to take the plunge. If a large number of shorts have to be settled on Friday, how long can can the bleeding last for those thatbare forced to settle then?

If the volume of sellers isnt large enough for a single day fix, I would live to see how wild it would get next week as the price grows. If the initial reasoning for the squeeze, ie over shorted percentage remains, what exactly stops thid from cycling weekly if enough investors control the volume to stop short positions to exit easily?
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 11:54 PM   #102
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,928
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
If the initial reasoning for the squeeze, ie over shorted percentage remains, what exactly stops thid from cycling weekly if enough investors control the volume to stop short positions to exit easily?
Total cost. The higher it gets, the more it will take to resist the shorts. Also, the newer shorts are probably well hedged and wont need to cover - they'll do well unless the price remains stable.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:00 AM   #103
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,079
Is it too late for me to buy Game Stop shares?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-...ained/13097982


Quote:
Since January 1, despite no real change in the underlying business, GameStop's share price has surged 1,915 per cent (from $US17.25 to $US347.51).
It has now become clear that the surge in demand for GameStop stock has been driven by an enthusiastic bunch of individual investors, many of whom hang out on the subreddit r/WallStreetBets.
The excited masses are following their 'king'

WallStreetBets is a place where users post their stock holdings and talk about their trades.
A year ago, a user by the name of Deep ******* Value (DFV) posted a screenshot of a position he had taken in GameStop.
He had spent about $US50,000 on stock in his initial investment.
"This dude should sell now," another user wrote in response.
"[Eight-five per cent] of wallstreet thinks [GameStop are] gonna miss earnings and so does earnings whispers. Plus either way [they're] gonna be negative earnings for first time. That ship is sinking."
DFV didn't seem phased: "Damn thanks for the advice."
Since then, and increasingly in the past few weeks, DFV has been posting his ever-more-valuable position — and demonstrating his uncanny foresight. (Deep ******* Value has yet to respond to an ABC request for comment.)
The subreddit is now electrified.
As the stock price rose dramatically, driven by other users wanting a piece of the action, there were desperate calls for regular updates from DFV, now being referred to as "king".
By mid-January, DFV's position was worth $5.7 million.

Reddit punters take on Wall Street. Will this end in tears?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

Last edited by Agatha; 29th January 2021 at 12:33 PM. Reason: Rule 10 in quote
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:12 AM   #104
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 8,461
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
But this seems more like an act of activism rather than investment. There is a very good chance that current buyers know they won't get their money back out, but they are buying stock or options just to screw the shorts. I know many people put $500 or more into political campaigns last year and I can see that sort of person putting a similarly amount into this as a way to voice their dissatisfaction with the powers that be.

It is more of a form of speech than a form of investment at this point.
I'm seeing a lot of both. Especially for late buyers, the risk is super high. The price will crash eventually, and if these later buyers are too slow on the selloff, they're going to lose basically everything.

Some are, like you say, buying it as a form of activism. A suicide bombing of the short-sellers, knowing that the shorted hedge funds will lose a lot more. They seem willing to lose whatever they put in.

But I'm definitely seeing a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon because it appears to be a money-printing machine. I'm seeing tons of people bragging about paper gains and getting ecstatic, but not seeing much evidence of anyone actually cashing out and securing those gains. It's not real money until it's out of the market, but I'm seeing a lot of bragging about numbers on screens.

I think we're going to see a lot of stories about people that were up tens of thousands of dollars that missed their opportunity to cash out and are now negative.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 28th January 2021 at 05:20 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:17 AM   #105
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 8,461
Almost assuredly yes. Late comers to get rich schemes, historically speaking, are the ones most likely to get fleeced.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:47 AM   #106
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,723
One of my personal rules is that if I'm hearing about a stock in the news that means it's already too late to do anything about it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:49 AM   #107
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,654
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-...ained/13097982





Reddit punters take on Wall Street. Will this end in tears?
It's too late to buy shares if your goal is to make money and not lose it.

If you'd like to be part of an effort to make some hedge fund ******** lose a lot more money, you can still jump in.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:57 AM   #108
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,654
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Generally speaking no, the low and middle class cannot invest in hedge funds.
As I understand it though, institutional pensions DO invest in hedge funds. Maybe more heavily than is healthy. And the people hit when pension funds are depleted are not the 1%.

Although I don't know enough about this to know whether pensions would be invested particularly in funds that were shorting Gamestop.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 06:16 AM   #109
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,425
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
I checked the options for Gamestop

https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quot...n=2023-01-20-m

Looks like options expire every Friday for that stock.

Short sellers might be taking it in the shorts.

I am rooting for Gamestock and the little guys, no guts to put any money on the line.

If I wouldn't buy Apple at 400, Gamestop is a no go, I'll stick to mutual funds.
Why is what your position rooting for gamestop and the short sellers are not? Bankruptcy might be the best thing for them.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:13 AM   #110
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
Total cost. The higher it gets, the more it will take to resist the shorts. Also, the newer shorts are probably well hedged and wont need to cover - they'll do well unless the price remains stable.
Oh i get that. But when 140% are shorted, there simply arent enough shares from what i would think to quickly close out a position. The largest shareholders are porbably not allowed to sell in any large volumes so constant sale from retail should be necessary.

The thing is, i dont see a reason the market cant remain irrational for longer thab shorts can afford it. Say price doubles on friday when shorts close positons, remains that way mon and tues as multiple day volume is needed. I see no reason price would have to drop beyond 200 or 300 on wednesday, and the shorts arr on the line again for a run up on friday.

Not exactly experienced or knowledgable on this, but when the underlying reasoning for why this isnhappening remains, i dont see the incentives to get out until that is fixed.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:16 AM   #111
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,096
Short answer: if you want to make money, yes it's too late.

Long answer: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...240771584.html

Teal deer: greedy bastards stuck their dick in a vice and it's still affordable to turn the crank.

[ETA] Actually, it may be too late for that as well. I'm starting to see stories of brokerages and trading apps disabling further buys of Gamestop.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 28th January 2021 at 07:41 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:28 AM   #112
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,509
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think we're going to see a lot of stories about people that were up tens of thousands of dollars that missed their opportunity to cash out and are now negative.
Yup. I'm kot going to shed a tear for the funds on the wrong side of a short squeeze. You take a risk, and sometimes it bites you in the ass.

I'm also not going to have any sympathy for the market trolls or followers of market trolls who lose their shirt. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips

Last edited by timhau; 28th January 2021 at 07:31 AM.
timhau is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:29 AM   #113
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,654
Fun update, apparently a number of trading apps are not allowing users to buy GME.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:39 AM   #114
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,118
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I cannot see any possible legislation in the USA prohibiting a group of people getting together and exhorting others to buy shares in a company, that would not obviously fall afoul of 1st amendment protections.

Eta: and if they did, how on earth would it be written so that social media sites can't... But pundits like Jim Cramer can tell you what stocks to buy?
Simple. They write a somewhat vague law and only enforce it selectively against people who make trouble for those in power and who lack the resources to make enforcing that law against them unpleasant for law enforcement.

This is how law works, with occasional exception.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:45 AM   #115
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
I checked the options for Gamestop

https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quot...n=2023-01-20-m

Looks like options expire every Friday for that stock.

Short sellers might be taking it in the shorts.

I am rooting for Gamestock and the little guys, no guts to put any money on the line.

If I wouldn't buy Apple at 400, Gamestop is a no go, I'll stick to mutual funds.
"Rooting for Gamestop" is an interesting position to take.

I'm still thinking about the ethics of short-selling, but I'm pretty sure Gamestop isn't worth rooting for. Could you tell us a little bit more about what that position means to you?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:51 AM   #116
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,118
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
As I understand it though, institutional pensions DO invest in hedge funds. Maybe more heavily than is healthy. And the people hit when pension funds are depleted are not the 1%.

Although I don't know enough about this to know whether pensions would be invested particularly in funds that were shorting Gamestop.
They do a fair job of creating human shields. Every time some greedy jerks take a bath (this, Madoff, etc.) there is always someone pointing out that the home for the poor or some pension fund loses out.

The idea that the risk of pension investment at all falls on the pensioners is the problem. It is almost impossible to live without getting sucked into this floating crap game of a financial system so we all have to root for the markets to not crash even though we get crumbs when they don't.

Meanwhile they suck more and more out of society by demanding laws that help them externalize cost and risk, eroding labor protections, etc.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 08:00 AM   #117
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,118
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Rooting for Gamestop" is an interesting position to take.

I'm still thinking about the ethics of short-selling, but I'm pretty sure Gamestop isn't worth rooting for. Could you tell us a little bit more about what that position means to you?
Buggywhip, Inc. Good riddance, except...

Human shields again. Think of the people this will throw out of work in a bad economy and a shoddy at best social safety net.

Get the risk away from the workers and pensioners and on the people who are reaping the profits and who cares what these schmucks do.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 08:17 AM   #118
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still thinking about the ethics of short-selling, but I'm pretty sure Gamestop isn't worth rooting for.
If you really are "still thinking" about the ethics of short selling, consider what kind of insufferable chodes these hedgefund jerks had to have been to make people root for Gamestop. Getting bitten this hard by the consequences of their market shenanigans has been a long time coming.

The only ethical dilemma here is whether it would be a net good to pause trading to keep people from throwing their money away, even if it also keeps the hedge funds from going under. The flip side, pausing trading to keep the hedge funds from going under because losing everything on a bad bet is only supposed to happen to the poors, is obviously unethical.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 08:20 AM   #119
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,422
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Human shields again.
Even beyond this one, specific incident I wonder how many companies really could function without any low level employees at all but keep them around for, as you say, "human shield" purposes.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 08:22 AM   #120
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,858
No matter how you look at this, one thing is clear: there is precious little connect between the performance of a company and its share price.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.