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

431–440 of 583 posts

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#431

Post by neuronic »

kasey_junk wrote: post #324
dannyw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melvin capital has been forced to take multiple capital injections and bail outs, to avoid being margin called. Short sellers have mark to market losses of over $6 billion, and should the momentum continue, they will be forced to sell at the worst times (infinity short squeeze). Wall St are looking like they will be the losers.

Melvins “bail outs” were agreements with other firms. “Wall St” is doing fine on this. Citadel must be loving their Robinhood order flow right now.

Good example.

'The system' and 'Wall St' don't just play the surface game here. Cool, nice, you short squeezed a hedge fund. It's awesome but ... you bet WSBers still involuntarily shoveled money to Wall St one way or another because every single step of the game is rigged asswards and back.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#432

Post by pas »

in3d wrote: post #90
pxue wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is exactly it. people say the market is a melt up.. another bubble. but i think that's wrong. It's like the show Billions, actual wallstreet does what wsb is doing ALL THE TIME. You make money when someone else loses money, it's simple. Except this time, the money isn't staying in the fraternity, it's being distributed out to the common folks. Can't have that it seems.

Common folks who get in late in the bubble will be the ones who will suffer. This populist mindset that you’re somehow sticking it to big banks or something by paying for trading is funny.

It's not zero-sum. Central banks are printing money. People put their gov checks into ETFs. Sure, eventually there'll be a reckoning.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#433

Post by colourgarden »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #92
admax88q wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying. A bubble like beanie babies and dutch tulips is still a logical consequence of seeking financial gain. A bubble is a game of chicken. It is about knowing when to jump off. This is a new phenomena. It is no longer about just making the bull thesis or the bear thesis. It is now persuasive to make the "this will fuck over a hedge fund manager" thesis. We need to add an entirely…

"Drain the swamp" == "this will fuck over a hedge fund manager".

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#434

Post by pas »

nico_h wrote: post #405
koheripbal wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a significant difference in the willingness to enact change between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. Where Congress (legislative branch) has been unwilling to pass any new regulations upon social media, the SEC (executive branch) is going to shut down these sorts of forums when they become disruptive. Having worked in this field, while the SEC can sometimes be slow to act, the fact that it mad…

I mean it's just a small forum, can they really have the same amount of influence on the market than a hedge fund or a market maker? What does the SEC care about a bunch of trolls on the internet?

Coordinating with the goal of market manipulation (basically buy/sell/short/pump-and-dump/etc cartels or other) is illegal as far as I know. Hence why the guys who made a lot of money on the negative oil trades are staying very quiet.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#435

Post by throwaway894345 »

pr0zac wrote: post #407
throwaway894345 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point about degrees wasn’t that some are more or less rigorous (although I haven’t heard of many rigorous women’s studies or art history programs), but rather that they aren’t going to pay well on the other side. I’m very skeptical of the claim that these programs are comprised mostly of the independently wealthy. > Majority of students go for practically sounding degrees - like various business related degrees. T…

Was interested also so I looked it up. Source: https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates For bachelors degrees: 432,077 STEM 386,201 business 244,909 healthcare 44,262 liberal arts 82,621 education So business is approx 9 times more popular than all of liberal arts combined with the vast majority of the rest being made up of degrees that would seem to be things that make money. Looking at the pie graph br…

First of all, this is a super cool website; I had no idea this existed. That said, it doesn't seem to suggest what timeframe these statistics are for (I've only had time to skim so far). As best I can tell, those are today's statistics, not the stats for the millennial generation, and I would fully expect the nouveau generation to have learned from our mistakes.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#436

Post by pas »

tootie wrote: post #406
pxue wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is exactly it. people say the market is a melt up.. another bubble. but i think that's wrong. It's like the show Billions, actual wallstreet does what wsb is doing ALL THE TIME. You make money when someone else loses money, it's simple. Except this time, the money isn't staying in the fraternity, it's being distributed out to the common folks. Can't have that it seems.

That's not really true. So long as stock indexes generally move up, everyone can make money. The battle is over who makes more and more quickly. I'm a passive investor just plowing savings in index funds and making like 12% a year. All the mechanics of day trading vs working for a bank are pretty similar, but the difference is scale. And the ability to hedge bets.

Indices are going up because people are putting money into the market(s), and governments (legislatures and central banks) are printing money in order to prevent market collapse, because that'd mean liquidation events, meaning every mark-to-market asset will suddenly worth nothing, every company will become toxic overnight, banks will (have to) stop funding companies, companies will cut costs (fire everybody, stop every kind of project/investment/capex), and everyone will try to sell things to make cash to pay back debt, which can start a deflation spiral.

The asset bubble is an unintended consequence, it's the "lesser evil". But it's again the rich get richer.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#437

Post by 1experience »

admax88q wrote: post #32
IIAOPSW wrote: post #15

I've wrote this elsewhere. The thing that's clicked for me after reading the comments on wsb is that populism, amplified by the modern internet, is going to radically change the finance world in a similar way to how it radically changed our political landscape. These people aren't just investing in GME to enrich themselves. They are doing it to spite the people who they percieve as rigging the game. They are doing it…

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

Except that valuations alone can be decisive in shaping the fate of companies

// What does this mean for GameStop? Because of traders’ bullish sentiment, a previously failing company is now in the position where it can leverage the overnight increase in value to make real, substantive changes to its business. GameStop can pay off debt through the issuance of new shares or make strategic acquisitions using its newly-valuable shares. [9] A struggling company could become solid simply not because of a change in the underlying business, but because investors decided it should be more valuable. //

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#438

Post by fsckboy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #410
afiori wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's efficiency in enriching participants of the stock market. Proponents would say that it is efficienct in funding ideas that are more likely to succeed, with the partecipants in the stock market taking a commission for the transactions.

My point is that "success" on the stock market isn't always a function of doing anything useful in the real world.

the stock market is doing something useful in the real world.

the aggregate success thrown off by the stock market is a measure of the usefulness of the stock market.

participating in that is what enables to stock market to provide its usefulness.

so, yes, success on the stock market is a function of usefulness in the real world.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#439

Post by vannevar »

This is essentially a crowd-sourced Ponzi scheme. But is it really so different from the market at large right now? It's more clearly identifiable in that there are explicit signals in the message board. But the primary signal is probably the stock trajectory itself, just as it is with the broader market. People are buying mostly because people are buying, and the higher the price goes, the more sensitive it will become to perturbations, until something---maybe a tiny fluctuation in some obscure part of the market---causes it to collapse.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#440

Post by rank0 »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #92
admax88q wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying. A bubble like beanie babies and dutch tulips is still a logical consequence of seeking financial gain. A bubble is a game of chicken. It is about knowing when to jump off. This is a new phenomena. It is no longer about just making the bull thesis or the bear thesis. It is now persuasive to make the "this will fuck over a hedge fund manager" thesis. We need to add an entirely…

This is silly. If there was no possibility for financial gain, nobody would be investing in GME.
Post reply on HN