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

The Battle of GameStop

paranoidenough.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 583 posts

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#351

Post by blaser-waffle »

rokobobo wrote: post #27
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a never-ending shit-show. At least some of us are getting rich in /r/wallstreetbets. This is sad because most of what you've said can be applied to lotteries as well, which historically has been criticized as being a "tax" on the poor. The end result is the same: people putting themselves in a worse place financially (on average), just so they can cope with their bleak existence.

Except, if a whole generation YOLOs hard enough, maybe the government will actually choose to bail them out for once.

Does anyone really believe that? The Fed'Gov couldn't get it together enough to vote for $600 assistance checks. We might see something before too long... maybe.

And this is for a global pandemic. You think they're gonna do anything if people choose to make risky-ass bets that don't pan out?

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#352

Post by intotheabyss »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #259
blackrock wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is a systemic risk behind this. Kind of like, if one domino falls, then the rest will tumble.

This is partially what happened in 2008. Hedgefunds overshorted the housing market and then everything went down.

Didn't hedgefunds "overlong" the housing market? They were borrowing on margin using housing debt as collateral, but the collateral turned out to be junk, so they got margin called when that collateral tanked (the CDOs), and banks with insufficient liquidity to cover the losses either collapsed or got bailed out.

Essentially the housing market bubble was people going long using worthless collateral.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#353

Post by refurb »

elmomle wrote: post #169
refurb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was explaining to a friend of mine a few weeks ago why cynicism is so prevalent in our generation Where have I heard this before? ” As adolescents and young adults in the 1980s and 1990s, Xers were dubbed the "MTV Generation" (a reference to the music video channel), sometimes being characterized as slackers, cynical, and disaffected.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

Arguably all started in the mid-to-late 70s when leadership in the US essentially threw in the towel on trying to improve the nation and started dismantling the country for profit. Adam Curtis's Hypernormalization does a very good job of illustrating this overall trend as it was reflected in the zeitgeist.

Or maybe being cynical and disaffected is just a part of being young? Seems pretty common!

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#354

Post by koheripbal »

ausbah wrote: post #264
glohbalrob wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same can be said about just about anything, no? running marathons, startups, cooking a great dish... No one on WSB is saying its for everyone, thats why they talk trash about themselves.

you can learn to run a marathon, cook, etc. with a much higher chance of success then something like trading stocks or to a less degree starting a business. the latter pursuits have a much more volatile environment that rewards luck > skill

Investing is not luck. It's luck if you make just one or two trades.

In the long run, statistical iterations (that you have modeled/researched correctly) will give you positive returns with a very high confidence.

Situations like in this post are obviously not that. I have a trading strategy that I execute over hundreds of trades per year based upon financial modeling and financial statement analysis. There's a little luck involved, but over many trades, the luck aspect cancels itself out.

It's like rolling the dice. If you bet on getting a certain number, and roll once, it's luck. If you bet on averaging a certain number and roll 1000 times, there's virtually no luck at all.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#355

Post by belval »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #305
TheFattestNinja wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that kind of the point of the discussion? A bunch of shitposters band together and manage to align themselves with someone with resources and interests to create a "movement" that is self-sustaining. The article makes parallelisms with the Capitol attack and other forms of self-fulfilling prophecies. Enough believers is the fuel, someone with resources makes a spark, things ignite.

WSB didn't create it. A billionaire founder created it and retail came along for the ride. The differences in holdings, excluding the anomolous millionaires, are enormous. Attributing this to WSB is calling them more powerful than they are.

Precisely, /u/DeepFuckingValue which started this thing on WSB literally has only $15M in GME on a $5B cap. In the grand scheme of thing that's not significant.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#356

Post by goodmattg »

ALittleLight wrote: post #220
Clewza313 wrote: post #33

A couple of hedge fund managers shorting GME may have gotten kicked in the nuts, but Wall Street as a whole is laughing all the way to the bank. A friend of mine working at a high-frequency trading co says 2020 was their best year ever and by a long shot, because volatility plus clueless retail investors (yes, that means you, /r/wsb'ers YOLOing on Robinhood) means arbitrage and frontrunning rakes in money.

If only regulators would get rid of useless parasites and criminals like high frequency traders.

I can't tell if this is in jest... if you're actually interested, the role of HFT in markets is hotly debated. The HFT side argues that they improve markets by providing liquidity - and that's true to an extant, spreads have narrowed drastically over time. And yes, there is the opposite side arguing they are purely "parasites", and exchanges like LTSE have been built specifically to counter HFT (Flash Boys, etc.)

Perhaps I don't like the word "criminals" being thrown around so loosely.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#357

Post by mizzack »

0b01 wrote: post #7

Citadel can see 80% of retail orderflow such as Robinhood and is massively long since last Friday as can be seen from the calls they are selling. Now it is likely the steam has run out(gamma cascade) so they are placing their bets on the opposite side by taking over Melvin which is massively short without causing too much market impact.

The steam didn't run out. They changed the rules. Bid/Ask spread on GME options is now $20 until 3/19.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#358

Post by [deleted] »

in3d wrote: post #56
dvt wrote: post #6

> The same emotion that caused us to root for the thieves in Ocean’s 11 is what makes Wall Street Bets so enticing. Put frankly, Millennials are tired of getting fucked by the man. When you’re underemployed with $100,000 in student loan debt, your financial situation feels overwhelming. You really don’t want to take the advice of your parents or CNBC talking heads [5] to invest 10% of your salary for a 4% annual retu…

Getting rich through a greater fool theory and creating a bubble in a small stock is not something I’d be proud of. You’re sticking it to the least knowledge Johnny-come-latelies who will be left holding the bag. Thinking that you’re screwing Goldman Sachs is delusional.

[deleted]

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#359

Post by koheripbal »

jameshart wrote: post #334
aeternum wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that op played the game well, then he successfully took capital from less efficient companies and allocated it to new more efficient companies. This creates value.

Market theory only says that the aggregate effect of market activity is to allocate capital efficiently. The claim is that it does so by broadly rewarding investors whose decisions maximize value creation, encouraging more such decisions in general over the long term. It does NOT say that any individual investment decision that produces a reward for the investor must necessarily have improved the allocation of capita…

> the way the rewards are allocated for playing... don’t matter too much.

Of course they matter. If they didn't matter, then participants wouldn't participate. ...and if they didn't participate then the market would have less liquidity. ...and higher liquidity is ALWAYS a good thing.

The health of a market can be characterized by the persistence of liquidity.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#360

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

stewx wrote: post #319
dvt wrote: post #6

> The same emotion that caused us to root for the thieves in Ocean’s 11 is what makes Wall Street Bets so enticing. Put frankly, Millennials are tired of getting fucked by the man. When you’re underemployed with $100,000 in student loan debt, your financial situation feels overwhelming. You really don’t want to take the advice of your parents or CNBC talking heads [5] to invest 10% of your salary for a 4% annual retu…

> invest 10% of your salary for a 4% annual return Except we have had bull markets for several years now. It has been an excellent time to be in the market. S&P500 returns for the past 5 years: 2016: 9.54% 2017: 19.42% 2018: -6.24% 2019: 28.88% 2020: 16.26%

Which young people don't have enough assets to take advantage of because most of their money goes to rent/loans. Then the eventual crash comes and they lose almost everything again.

Why not take a gamble?

Post reply on HN