Jump to content

Reddit - wallstreetbets


Steve
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a better chance of understanding Klingon than I do stocks. And I don't speak Klingon. that said, what I'm seeing about this in the other threads has tickled me. Apparently though there's been a lock down, possibly an illegal one, preventing further purchases? Bonkers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see: 

 

RobinHood is currently forcibly selling all our gamestop stock (hey: I had a hundred bucks I was going to blow on books anyway, okay?  This particular protest was worth it, at least to me), even without our permission.  The hedgefunds are continuing deep into after-hours trading.

 

Fortunately, several Canadians and even some west Europeans have picked up the ball and are running with it.  I don't know if it's going to lose steam or not; with the forcible closing of the reddit forums related to this and the fact that I don't Twit means my updates are pretty sporadic.

 

Frankly, I saw one investor post something that I wish I could afford to get behind:

 

We will bankrupt one hedge fund a week until we see real reform.  (others have adopted it for Stimulus checks and Congressional reform, etc, but honestly: trading and banking reform would do it for me).

 

Going to bed.

 

You folks have fun.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GME is at $348.14 at the moment. With the short interest still at over 121% per TD Ameritrade this morning, the wallstreetbets crowds are really giving the hedge funds involved in this a lot of pain.

 

The Robinhood platform is also losing a ton of customers after all the funny business they did this week, and the bad press they are getting over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google is coming down in favor of Robin Hood: twice now they have dumped several thousand one-star reviews (given because of their stoppage on behalf of the hedge funds and the forced selling of shorted stock against the holders' wishes).

 

Actually, Google has been involved in lots of shady crap since they abandoned their "Don't be evil" motto.

 

Weird how that happened.   :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he downside, which I have asked around trhis, is that GameStop as a company sees no advantage from the speculative swings of their stop. The speculation won't keep a single store open or have even one employee keep a job. It's going under regardless.

 

I look at this and all I can think of is somebody going down for Securities Fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

he downside, which I have asked around trhis, is that GameStop as a company sees no advantage from the speculative swings of their stop. The speculation won't keep a single store open or have even one employee keep a job. It's going under regardless.

 

I look at this and all I can think of is somebody going down for Securities Fraud.

 

Actually, the higher stock price gives them an opportunity to try and raise more capital, which could stave off bankruptcy. It might also give them more time to update their business model.

 

That's a theory being floated by Peter Hanks at dailyfx.com recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

he downside, which I have asked around trhis, is that GameStop as a company sees no advantage from the speculative swings of their stop. The speculation won't keep a single store open or have even one employee keep a job. It's going under regardless.

 

I would like to point out that this is one-hundred percent, absolutely correct.  However-- well, more on that later.

 

I pointed out the correctness of your assertion so that I could also point out that I don't think any of us involved in this are unaware of that.  While I would _love_ to think that we could keep GS open and functioning, simply because _millions_ of us would, without a GameStop within an hour or two from us, would be stuck relying entirely on the "wide range of options" that can be found at Wal-Mart.  Also knowns as "a bunch of sports crap and whatever has Mario in it," which are quite possibly the two categories of video game I detest the most.

 

Additionally, Wal-Mart has _once_, and only one in their history, and it was back in the final days of the PS1, carried any used titles, and I am not ashamed to say it: Used is the only thing in my budget.  I spend all year socking away a few bucks to get the kids a few new titles during the Christmas sales: they get a couple for Christmas, and one saved for their respective birthdays.  Anything else is "hey, let's go to gamestop and you can pick out a game under X amount."   The rare game that I play every now and again is _always_ used, as is anything the wife wants to play.

 

Still, I am getting off track.

 

What I want to point out most is that "saving GameStop" is _not_ why we are doing this.  It's not even _close_ to why we are doing this.  The majority of us have sworn that we have invested no more than we can afford to lose, and we are going ride it into the ground, which _is_ why we are doing it.  Sadly, I think when the squeeze comes, too many will be tempted by the potential for a few bucks profit and sell before the squeeze comes, but we'll see.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

I look at this and all I can think of is somebody going down for Securities Fraud.

 

I completely agree.  I am also one-hundred percent certain it won't be the people who actually created the situation, and continue to create the situation, over and over, artificially pushing numerous business out of business (and ending millions of crappy jobs) for the sake of buying a fifth yacht.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Steve said:

An article from Zerohedge, Robinhood has now capped maximum holdings in 36 stocks to just one share. That is total new shares, not shares per order.

 

Something bad is going to happen to them this weekend, I think. They might be about to implode.

 

Nope. At least, I don't think so.  However, as I mentioned earlier, they are making lots and lots of noise that they _will_ implode on or about today.  You want my opinion?  This is an attempt to generate a false victory, hoping to inspire a massive sell-off while they still have time to cover.  Not only will they be safe if this happens, but they will still be able to generate a profit by destroying gamestop (yes; GS is dying, but shortselling accelerates this by sending cues to the typical retail buyer or "hands on" portfolio types into panicking and selling prematurely, running the value of the stock far, far lower and far, far sooner than would naturally happen.  It kills and chance for a company rally or make changes by simply stomping it flat when the Hedge Funds are ready to harvest the juice from it.

 

Here's the thing: if you look at the Time to Cover still available to them, it could be three weeks before the Crush occurs.  When that number starts to get ridiculously small, then the squeeze is coming.  The more people they can get to sell before that point, the more money _they will still make_.  Seriously: the system has become so rigged (ie, selling stock you actually don't own _is_ straight-up illegal, but they've been doing it for _decades_ without so much as a slap on the wrist!  Now if you or I were to sell a stock we didn't own, we'd be in front of a judge in _hours_.) 

 

Another thing that I hope more people using apps or services to buy these stocks are aware of is that some of the apps (and almost all of the through-a-broker services for small holdings) either have or allow you to set a "sell limit," which means that when the stock reaches a certain value (high or low) or percentage of profit or loss, they will be sold automatically, as soon as possible.  If you are using such an app, and are involved in this, I urge you to set that to "no limit."  If you are using a broker, then specifically tell him (get a read receipt if you're conversing in e-mail) that under no circumstances is he to sell this stock, period.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Steve said:

 

Actually, the higher stock price gives them an opportunity to try and raise more capital, which could stave off bankruptcy. It might also give them more time to update their business model.

 

That's a theory being floated by Peter Hanks at dailyfx.com recently.

 

It's not just a theory, it gives them more capital, which they can use (if they are quick enough) to either buy back their own stock (and unless they are nearly half-owners of the stock anyway, there's not much point in that) or sink into resources or radical restructuring.  If I were them, I would sink it into modernizing the online presence, TV advertising, and moving to a much better internet service and delivery system, and then do a RedBox model of game rentals all over the more popular shopping centers (there were, back in the good old days of video stores, re-writable DVDs that could be turned into other games, new sticker slapped on them, new box label, etc-- another possibility to consider.  Casuals make up the bulk of console gamers, and casuals like to rent games because not many will "finish" it, and ever fewer will "complete" it; they just want to play it a little while.

 

 

At any rate, none of this was the point I wanted to make; forgive me.

 

All I wanted to point out that making money or saving GameStop-- while that last one would be a welcome side-effect, this whole thing came out of nowhere and likely won't last long enough for any real use of the capital to be made-- is _not_ why we are doing this.

 

The fact is that the scariest estimates suggest in eight more years, the income disparity will be so large as to make what's happening right now absolutely impossible.  There are lots of motivations behind this, the two most common of which are to demonstrate to _all_ of us working schmucks that--- Lord, I am loathe to say it, but "Apes.  Together.  STRONG!", to point out that "the economy"-- that precious thing which "Essentials"  (ie, Redshirts) are being sacrificed for hand over foot-- is nothing more than a looting pool for a small handful of people, and to do it in such a spectacular fashion that the problem _demands_ change on far-too-public a scale to be ignored.

 

Sometimes, you have to remind the ants that they really do outnumber the grasshoppers.  ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROBINHOOD NEEDED EMERGENCY $1 BILLION CASH INJECTION, YET REMAINS UNDERFUNDED (NYT)

On Thursday, Robinhood was forced to stop customers from buying a number of stocks like GameStop that were heavily traded this week. To continue operating, it drew on a line of credit from six banks amounting to between $500 million and $600 million to meet higher margin, or lending, requirements from its central clearing facility for stock trades, known as the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation.
 

Robinhood still needed more cash quickly to ensure that it didn’t have to place further limits on customer trading, said two people briefed on the situation who insisted on remaining anonymous because the negotiations were confidential.
 

Robinhood, which is privately held, contacted several of its investors, including the venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Ribbit Capital, who came together on Thursday night to offer the emergency funding, five people involved in the negotiations said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘MEME STOCK’ RALLY RESCUES AMC THEATERS FROM $600M DEBT

 

Just Monday, AMC was warning investors that “there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.” The reason is obvious: the COVID-19 pandemic has savaged the movie theater business, and the broader stimulus, payroll, and recovery actions by the U.S. government have done little to prop it up.
 

Wiping out more than half-a-billion dollars in debt, though, should take a lot of pressure off AMC in the short term. “A week ago, it was not crazy to think this company was doomed,” Bloomberg’s Matt Levine wrote on Thursday. “Now it is entirely possible that it will survive and thrive and show movies in movie theaters for decades to come because everyone went nuts and bought meme stocks this week.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now CNBC has become part of the billionaire bandwagon (which, considering its ownership, isn't entirely unexpected) by bringing in a "panel of experts" to explain to us poor peasants how what we are doing is going to destroy us financially, and to ensure that they all use negative, down-speaking dialogue to subtly make us feel like we just don't understand what we're doing.

 

There are two things going on here:  those who have begun referring to all this as "meme stock" have a much better understanding of just what's going on here: that the motivation runs completely counter to typical investments:  we aren't looking to make money-- and are attempting to convince the weaker-willed (I don't mean that offensively, but let's face it: a lot of people pile on a bandwagon because "it seems like fun!" without really subscribing to whatever is driving it or where it's heading, and these people are likely less motivated to ride it to the end, and are more easily tempted by the "if I cash out _now_, I will actually have made some money!" Frankly, it's true: if they jumped in early and cashed out now, they'd make an unheard of (for us "retail buyers," that is) ROI.  That's who these people, via CNBC and other owned media, are targetting.

 

I'm afraid it will work, too: weak wills and short-sightedness means that they don't really understand that there is a very narrow window remaining in which the public will be able to put direct pressure on the corruption of the wealthy (Sure: not all wealthy people are corrupt, at least on paper, and I made a blanket statement, so let me narrow that down a bit):

 

The corrupted system that serves to prop them up completely artificially, controlled by their whims, and used to move large sums of capital to wherever they want it to be, without any actual genuine oversight, because in the words of that "retired" hedge fund guy who does that lunatic stock advice segment (which, I believe, is also on CNBC) the SEC doesn't actually understand that stock market anyway, at least not "the way it works _today_."  (anyone remember that leaked video from his high-dollar 'investment school' where he said "fomenting is illegal" then went on to explain when, why, and how to foment, giving actual examples from his days a a hedgefund manager?  No?   Oh well; I'm far enough off course anyway)

 

As to Wall Street itself, it seems it has spent the last day and a half very low-key moving as much of the GME and AMC stocks (I am absolutely positive that they have seen the upswell in Nokia (NOK), but are currently too damned busy to do anything about it) as they can, as often as they can, between themselves.

 

For anyone who doesn't know:

 

Stock prices haven't been determined by analytical study in _decades_.  Speculation is still done that way, but not pricing.  Prices are set via a computer algorithm, and one of the things that it uses to devalue stocks is short-term holding and bulk sales.  So as we speak, several hedgefunds are in collusion to artificially (ie, illegally) drop the price of these stocks, and in a hurry.

 

This is both good an bad: on the good side, it's _obvious_.  They are doing it on a scale that absolutely can't be hidden.  The fact that it is still going on not only demonstrates the corruption in Wall Street and how far it goes, but that there is quite clearly a lot of corruption in oversight and enforcement as well.  Granted, a lot of that will get emboldened and actually become a lot worse since-- well, I don't want to get dinged for politics, so I will sum it up as "when you are part of the instigation of actual murder, and get caught, and don't get punished specifically because of your wealth and position---  you are sending a pretty clear message to everyone in positions of wealth and influence or high authority that you can pretty much do anything you want, without repercussions, so expect to see very little-- if anything-- happen to the authorities who are letting this continue.

 

It's also good because it demonstrates to the working class that they can exercise control of their own situation, if only by shaking the fears of those who plunder them regularly.

 

It's bad in that the media campaign of straight-up garbage is probably going to work.  Remember that they don't have to influence everyone involved.  They only have to influence the jump-ins who came along for a good time-- the people who wrapped a sliced onion in a handkerchief and claimed to maced-- those people.  They are less motivationally invested in the protest, and will be more easy to sway away from it, and more easily convinced to sell with a dollar or two to show for it, especially if the media puts forth (and I'm waiting for this one; so far they haven't figured out that just telling us we're going to lose money will work) a message that seeks to split those people away, something along the line of "or course, there will be a lot of savvy people in this group, people who jumped in when they saw the ground swell, maybe even sunk in their life savings for this incredible risk [this would subconsciously drive home the 'wow; this is too dangerous to stick with' message they've been trying to peddle], and we'l see them start jumping out now, making an unprecedented profit, instead of waiting for the price to top out and trying to sell when the landslide begins..."

 

That's the sort of message that is far more likely to work, but I haven't seen them try it yet; so far they are focusing on "stupid!  You people are stupid!  You don't know what you're doing, and it's going to destroy you financially!"

 

Again, before anyone worries about that, the bulk of us are investing very little, and not one cent more than we are willing to have just set on fire anyway.  We'll be fine.  Second, yes, we are going to be ruined financially, but only in the way that we already where before we started-- the way that you guys ruined us years and years ago, and then keep pulling out the ladders.  Not one bit more than that, though.

 

The worst thing, though, is that if they peel away enough people (and that "enough people" isn't even all of those who just hopped on for the fun of it), they can still get out of this, and I guarantee that there will be enough changes in the rules (note that rules are different from regulations: rules are what the individual investment companies require of you, and consist of things like "well, your management charge consists of 94 % of whatever money your stocks made, unless your stock loses money, in which case it's a straight five bucks a month".  Regulations are directly from ruling bodies, and are, if not actual law, the precedent upon which law will be based.  Know the difference ;) ).

 

At any rate, if they get out of this, there will enough rules changes, and enough pressure to regulators that are, at the moment, showing their indifference and in some cases, potential corruption, to make sure that the working man will, going forward, not ever be able to get into a position of financial ability again, even in large groups.  When this happens, remember it's a punishment for doing nothing illegal, and think about how that feels.

 

That last is speculation, however.  Hopefully, with almost half (not quite, but almost) of the current Congress being not-millionaires, there will at least be a protracted and very public fight before we get locked out.

 

 

 

I saw a meme that I promptly forgot to bookmark and now can't find, but it amused me:

 

"When the government promised you a stimulus and instead gave it to the hedge funds, you have to get it from them.

 

Dave Chapelle:  Modern problems require modern solutions.

 

 

:rofl:

 

 

Anyway, I have to go check on my wife.

 

I can't order it; I can't command it; I _wont_ command it, but I will ask for you to consider it:  

 

If you're involved at all, please-- ride it to the bottom.  Even if we can't win, let them know that they can still take a beating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I would like to point out that this is one-hundred percent, absolutely correct.  However-- well, more on that later.

 

I pointed out the correctness of your assertion so that I could also point out that I don't think any of us involved in this are unaware of that.  While I would _love_ to think that we could keep GS open and functioning, simply because _millions_ of us would, without a GameStop within an hour or two from us, would be stuck relying entirely on the "wide range of options" that can be found at Wal-Mart.  Also knowns as "a bunch of sports crap and whatever has Mario in it," which are quite possibly the two categories of video game I detest the most.

 

Additionally, Wal-Mart has _once_, and only one in their history, and it was back in the final days of the PS1, carried any used titles, and I am not ashamed to say it: Used is the only thing in my budget.  I spend all year socking away a few bucks to get the kids a few new titles during the Christmas sales: they get a couple for Christmas, and one saved for their respective birthdays.  Anything else is "hey, let's go to gamestop and you can pick out a game under X amount."   The rare game that I play every now and again is _always_ used, as is anything the wife wants to play.

 

Still, I am getting off track.

 

What I want to point out most is that "saving GameStop" is _not_ why we are doing this.  It's not even _close_ to why we are doing this.  The majority of us have sworn that we have invested no more than we can afford to lose, and we are going ride it into the ground, which _is_ why we are doing it.  Sadly, I think when the squeeze comes, too many will be tempted by the potential for a few bucks profit and sell before the squeeze comes, but we'll see.

 

 

 

 

I completely agree.  I am also one-hundred percent certain it won't be the people who actually created the situation, and continue to create the situation, over and over, artificially pushing numerous business out of business (and ending millions of crappy jobs) for the sake of buying a fifth yacht.

 

 

 

Nope. At least, I don't think so.  However, as I mentioned earlier, they are making lots and lots of noise that they _will_ implode on or about today.  You want my opinion?  This is an attempt to generate a false victory, hoping to inspire a massive sell-off while they still have time to cover.  Not only will they be safe if this happens, but they will still be able to generate a profit by destroying gamestop (yes; GS is dying, but shortselling accelerates this by sending cues to the typical retail buyer or "hands on" portfolio types into panicking and selling prematurely, running the value of the stock far, far lower and far, far sooner than would naturally happen.  It kills and chance for a company rally or make changes by simply stomping it flat when the Hedge Funds are ready to harvest the juice from it.

 

Here's the thing: if you look at the Time to Cover still available to them, it could be three weeks before the Crush occurs.  When that number starts to get ridiculously small, then the squeeze is coming.  The more people they can get to sell before that point, the more money _they will still make_.  Seriously: the system has become so rigged (ie, selling stock you actually don't own _is_ straight-up illegal, but they've been doing it for _decades_ without so much as a slap on the wrist!  Now if you or I were to sell a stock we didn't own, we'd be in front of a judge in _hours_.) 

 

Another thing that I hope more people using apps or services to buy these stocks are aware of is that some of the apps (and almost all of the through-a-broker services for small holdings) either have or allow you to set a "sell limit," which means that when the stock reaches a certain value (high or low) or percentage of profit or loss, they will be sold automatically, as soon as possible.  If you are using such an app, and are involved in this, I urge you to set that to "no limit."  If you are using a broker, then specifically tell him (get a read receipt if you're conversing in e-mail) that under no circumstances is he to sell this stock, period.

 

 

 

 

It's not just a theory, it gives them more capital, which they can use (if they are quick enough) to either buy back their own stock (and unless they are nearly half-owners of the stock anyway, there's not much point in that) or sink into resources or radical restructuring.  If I were them, I would sink it into modernizing the online presence, TV advertising, and moving to a much better internet service and delivery system, and then do a RedBox model of game rentals all over the more popular shopping centers (there were, back in the good old days of video stores, re-writable DVDs that could be turned into other games, new sticker slapped on them, new box label, etc-- another possibility to consider.  Casuals make up the bulk of console gamers, and casuals like to rent games because not many will "finish" it, and ever fewer will "complete" it; they just want to play it a little while.

 

 

At any rate, none of this was the point I wanted to make; forgive me.

 

All I wanted to point out that making money or saving GameStop-- while that last one would be a welcome side-effect, this whole thing came out of nowhere and likely won't last long enough for any real use of the capital to be made-- is _not_ why we are doing this.

 

The fact is that the scariest estimates suggest in eight more years, the income disparity will be so large as to make what's happening right now absolutely impossible.  There are lots of motivations behind this, the two most common of which are to demonstrate to _all_ of us working schmucks that--- Lord, I am loathe to say it, but "Apes.  Together.  STRONG!", to point out that "the economy"-- that precious thing which "Essentials"  (ie, Redshirts) are being sacrificed for hand over foot-- is nothing more than a looting pool for a small handful of people, and to do it in such a spectacular fashion that the problem _demands_ change on far-too-public a scale to be ignored.

 

Sometimes, you have to remind the ants that they really do outnumber the grasshoppers.  ;)

 

 

 

Okay....as managing a Gamestop was my last job, this needs to be said. Streaming and the move to online gaming did not kill Gamestop. What killed them was a poor business model that focused on wringing every last dollar out of customers come hell or high water, poor service and adaptability in stores (every store was treated the exact same no matter where it was located or what the local market was like), and the usual service industry standard of treating employees like expendable mules. Gamestop had years to adapt, but they were slow to innovate their core business and spent their capital on risky side ventures that didn't pan out. Like a lot of companies, they failed to invest in their infrastructure and talent base (most of whom left for jobs that treated them better). While I don't particularly like Walmart, I am happy to see Gamestop laid to rest permanently. My only regret is the employees who still remain. They deserved better. We all did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely.  Gamestop was doomed.  I pointed out both that I would love to see it saved, but it was just too late.  I also pointed out that this entire movement, despite how so many people are trying to make the general public interpret it, was never about saving Gamestop.  The GameStop stock just happened to be in the right position to use as the tool.  IT could just as easily have been RIM (nearly was, and may still be).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...