Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#31

Post by sokoloff »

seabird wrote: post #30
sushid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long means that they're holding shares or call options. Not sure why you're redefining a well-known term on the parent commenter's behalf.

I haven't redefined anything; your definition of "long means that they're holding shares or call options" is completely in agreement with my statement that "long just means not short." The parent seems to be conflating having a long position and believing in the long-term performance of the company. They're asking about long-term changes in GameStop's business when the person he's asking about this could very well be…

Long doesn't "just mean not short". There are 500 symbols in the S&P 500 that I'm "not short". I'm also "not long" 500 of those same symbols.

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#32

Post by tamiral »

retzkek wrote: post #20
boatsie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volume for the day is currently at 134m. Even at $80 average trade price, that is over $10 billion worth traded today. Average volume was 20 million for a whole day, and at $20 was about $400m trading hands. Do the wsb retail investors really control enough money to be buying up the stock this much? If they do, that means they could do this to many stocks...

Matt Levine had a very good explanation of this in his newsletter today: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the-ga... The TL;DR is that r/WSB et al primarily trade in options, which provide significant leverage and force market makers to take increasingly large positions in the underlying to hedge.

r/WSB has held mostly shares of the company and a survey on the subreddit found that users own 8% of GME shares, that's if everyone was truthful, so no 8% isnt enough to move the market when everyone is buying shares and not options. The fact is GME pumped above all time highs due to retail investor hype and from click bait articles on all the financial news sites + specific scenarios of a gamma squeeze mentioned here....

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#33

Post by seabird »

sokoloff wrote: post #31
seabird wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't redefined anything; your definition of "long means that they're holding shares or call options" is completely in agreement with my statement that "long just means not short." The parent seems to be conflating having a long position and believing in the long-term performance of the company. They're asking about long-term changes in GameStop's business when the person he's asking about this could very well be…

Long doesn't "just mean not short". There are 500 symbols in the S&P 500 that I'm "not short". I'm also "not long" 500 of those same symbols.

That's true, but I think it's a very fair assumption that the parent of my initial comment realizes that the grandparent has a position, considering that they're asking why they took that position.

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#34

Post by woah »

seabird wrote: post #33
sokoloff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long doesn't "just mean not short". There are 500 symbols in the S&P 500 that I'm "not short". I'm also "not long" 500 of those same symbols.

That's true, but I think it's a very fair assumption that the parent of my initial comment realizes that the grandparent has a position, considering that they're asking why they took that position.

You are correct

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#35

Post by rtkwe »

Miner49er wrote: post #5

Robinhood has gotten a lot of flak recently for the power they've given inexperienced traders, but without them this wouldn't have happened. They're really living up to their name.

Someone's going to be holding the bag on this when the short squeeze ends and it won't just be Citron or the other shorts.

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#36

Post by mcv »

woah wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should expect a high amount of volatility for this symbol considering it's high profile currently (Reddit WSB, Bloomberg front page, etc). Disclosure: Long GME.

What’s the actual long GME hypothesis? From WSB, I’ve read 3 things 1. Ryan Cohen joins board. Ok, I like chewy.com but having this one dude on the board is really worth 20x in the company’s value? 2. They plan to sell PC parts. Again, really? And right before a bunch of new consoles are released? 3. People have some vague idea that they might start a Steam competitor. Does GameStop have any expertise, talent, or IP…

The 20x value doesn't come from Ryan Cohen, it comes from short-sellers being in too deep. Short-sellers have to buy in order to close their short, and that's guaranteed, and from what I understand, very inelastic demand. That's the real path to profit here: short-sellers having no option but to buy ridiculously overpriced shares in order to settle their shorts.

Re: How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop Shares to the Moon

#37

Post by runeks »

boatsie wrote: post #17
Goosee wrote: post #14

For context one short seller (Citron Research) published this video explaining their belief that GME is a $20 stock.[1] The way I see it, Citron believes this fiasco is irrational thought about the future of Gamestop and its value. I think this is actually about the common retail trader manipulating the 'market manipulators'. In other words, let Citron taste their own medicine. I think Citron failed to realize in the…

Volume for the day is currently at 134m. Even at $80 average trade price, that is over $10 billion worth traded today. Average volume was 20 million for a whole day, and at $20 was about $400m trading hands. Do the wsb retail investors really control enough money to be buying up the stock this much? If they do, that means they could do this to many stocks...

You don’t need $10bn of capital to trade $10bn worth of a stock. For example, if you repeatedly buy and then sell a single share then you could, in theory, add billions of dollars of volume with only as much capital as the price of a single share.
Post reply on HN