Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, its not. Have you forgotten the bailouts already?
Equity holders of defunct financial institutions were not bailed out in 2009. They suffered massive losses.
That's a slimy way of summarizing the situation
Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
41–50 of 198 posts
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#42He didn’t have any answer as to the fate of new bag holders he created with his tweet. That was irresponsible. His plan to make hedge funds disclose their positions daily as some kind of a solution to overleverage makes no sense whatsoever. And he’s delusional about research skills of WSB posters as compared to Wall Street analysts.
>He didn’t have any answer as to fate of new bag holders he created with his tweet.
Perhaps, but like his response to this question pointed out: neither did wallstreet when they left the US population as bag holders for all their damage in the past (ie, 2008).
Additionally, the only people left being bag holders here so far are the hedge fund (and their copycats) taking such an absurd short position.
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#43Wall Street is a large scale gambling operation with a public-backed safety net. Apparently they don't like it when people call this out. And they definitely hate it more when outsiders start beating them at their game.
> Apparently they don't like it when people call this out.
Source? Clearly "they" dont like losing money but the rules are clear.
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#44Wall Street is a large scale gambling operation with a public-backed safety net. Apparently they don't like it when people call this out. And they definitely hate it more when outsiders start beating them at their game.
Nonsense
Please don't post like this—it's against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you feel that another comment is wrong, the way to respond is to show how it's wrong, include additional relevant information, and avoid name-calling. Then we can all keep learning (and also kick the can down the road a bit regarding the part where we degenerate into flaming spears and tribal warfare).
I get that the GP comment was also a provocation without much information in it, but these things are matters of degree, and the right direction to go in response to provocation is exactly the opposite to the way your comment went.
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#45[deleted]
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#46He didn’t have any answer as to the fate of new bag holders he created with his tweet. That was irresponsible. His plan to make hedge funds disclose their positions daily as some kind of a solution to overleverage makes no sense whatsoever. And he’s delusional about research skills of WSB posters as compared to Wall Street analysts.
> And he’s delusional about research skills of WSB posters as compared to Wall Street analysts.
I think it's a mistake to take his comments as applying to WSB as a whole. I agree WSB posters, collectively, are mostly clueless. But there are absolutely people in there who know what they're doing and have put a lot of thought into their strategy.
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that he ignored a few important questions. There is the very real possibility (and it's more like a certainty) that regular people will join the bandwagon too late and get hurt. When hedge funds get hurt, they still have plenty of money to survive. When I see posts (although who knows if they are real) about putting your life savings on something like this, losing that money has very serious real-world implic…
I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who loses large amounts of money on risky gambling like this. Especially for anyone willing to put their entire life savings on the line--if it wasn't this they would find some other stupid way to lose all their money.
a fool and his money...
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#48Wow, anyone else irritated by the interviewer and his bias?
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#49Not a huge Chamath fan, but holy crap does destroy these utterly worthless CNBC questions.
> "It doesn't mean that the investors that were short the stock were fundamentally wrong" - at around 28:00
Did he not hear that 136% of the shares were short? Anybody, LITERALLY ANYBODY who shorted past 100% deserves to lose everything. It's fundamentally stupid and fundamentally wrong. The shorts are not getting screwed, they deserve what they get from this.
Then he goes on to retail investors being the ones who are sometimes going to get hurt?
How did such terrible, poor, awful analysis get a position on TV? If he had any point, he never ever made it.
Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]
#50He didn’t have any answer as to the fate of new bag holders he created with his tweet. That was irresponsible. His plan to make hedge funds disclose their positions daily as some kind of a solution to overleverage makes no sense whatsoever. And he’s delusional about research skills of WSB posters as compared to Wall Street analysts.
>He didn’t have any answer as to fate of new bag holders he created with his tweet. Perhaps, but like his response to this question pointed out: neither did wallstreet when they left the US population as bag holders for all their damage in the past (ie, 2008). Additionally, the only people left being bag holders here so far are the hedge fund (and their copycats) taking such an absurd short position.
Or to further add to your point, we literally have frothy equities because we had to print our way out of the last debacle.
They are complaining about a necessary situation they created lol. We need to stimulate investment to get out of the last crisis (that was the plan all along). What are these cats complaining about?