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

Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

overcast.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#71

Post by nceqs3 »

99_00 wrote: post #69
nceqs3 wrote: post #67

The Chamath Craze is ridiculous. The guy is a stock promoter through and through. It's really sad to see people fall into this guys trap. He has an incredibly story (coming from nothing) but lets look at his career: He "leaves" (aka fired) Facebook for being a D*ck head. Nobody is willing to work with him because he is rude and a jerk. His direct reports would cry regularly. Steven Levy talked about this in his book…

Just to be clear, you aren't disagreeing with the argument he is making in this clip? Correct?

Yes, I am pretty pro WSB just like chamath. I think he is wrong about the "research" that is happening though. There is a bull case but not a $25 bil mkt cap one.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#73

Post by paulgb »

polka_haunts_us wrote: post #70
paulgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, the only people left being bag holders here so far are the hedge fund “So far” is carrying a lot of weight here.

As long as the price keeps going up, there's no bag to hold yet in this metaphor. We're still at the part of the heist where the vault is being emptied.

Let me put it this way, if someone bought GME over the last few days and sold it at 3x what they paid, what fraction of that gain (on average) came from a hedge fund covering a short vs. from another retail investor buying in? The assumption seems to be that it comes purely from a short cover but that’s not at all obvious to me.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#74

Post by segmondy »

systemvoltage wrote: post #34
runawaybottle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really not a cesspool. Outside of the frenzy, they do a solid job (when things are quiet) of finding cheap stocks with a potential to move within a year. Even GME, before the phenomenon, the subreddit was mostly targeting 40 dollars around April earnings. The short squeeze was a real tactical play, but most people weren’t 100% on that as the main catalyst (as in, most people really thought the ps5/Xbox sales wou…

I’ve been following it for 7-8 years now. Lots great DDs that didn’t turn out as well. After sterilization (ignoring 99% of the nonsense comments), I just see more guess work than anything else. Before GME, there was RiteAid, we all know how that panned out.

So it's a cesspool and yet you have followed it for 7-8yrs? Please! It definitely has amazing value for you to follow it for 7-8yrs, there are few things that I have used for 7-8yrs. I have been following it since last year and it's amazing. Sure, you have to dig out the gem, but it's like mining for gold or diamond. Gotta do the work.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#75

Post by paxys »

nceqs3 wrote: post #67

The Chamath Craze is ridiculous. The guy is a stock promoter through and through. It's really sad to see people fall into this guys trap. He has an incredibly story (coming from nothing) but lets look at his career: He "leaves" (aka fired) Facebook for being a D*ck head. Nobody is willing to work with him because he is rude and a jerk. His direct reports would cry regularly. Steven Levy talked about this in his book…

> You can't voice any controversial opinion anymore on this site.

You clearly can, considering your comment hasn't been removed. Why do you think your opinion deserves to be on the top of the page over anyone else's?

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#76

Post by paxys »

nceqs3 wrote: post #71
99_00 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you aren't disagreeing with the argument he is making in this clip? Correct?

Yes, I am pretty pro WSB just like chamath. I think he is wrong about the "research" that is happening though. There is a bull case but not a $25 bil mkt cap one.

Chamath's comment was that there is a lot of great market analysis happening on WSB every day, on par with that of large hedge funds, so it isn't wise to treat the forum as just a joke. The interviewer twisted that into him saying that WSB thinks $350 is the correct price for GameStop. No one – least of all WSB – thinks that. This is purely a play for squeezing the shorts.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#77

Post by epistasis »

UncleMeat wrote: post #62
epistasis wrote: post #49

Not 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…

But it isn't different to be the one who shorted past 100% and to be the one who shorted earlier when other people shorted past 100%.

The short positions were at huge multiples of float for a long long long time before the stock price started to rise, allowing them to unwind their short position, no? This is not a new, sudden situation, it's been planned for a long long long time.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#79

Post by paxys »

bidirectional wrote: post #63
thunkshift1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its not. Have you forgotten the bailouts already?

Which hedge funds received bailouts? This insistence on viewing Wall St as a monolithic entity is just asinine. I can assure you the investment bankers at Goldman are not losing any sleep over GameStop.

Hedge funds didn't receive bailouts because they had all shorted the housing market. They instead made large profits while a large chunk of the country lost their jobs and homes.

Meanwhile hundreds of banks and other financial institutions did get public funds. The state did not take any ownership, and some of them still haven't paid back billions. The profits generated since then – all directly due to the bailouts – have been private.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#80

Post by polka_haunts_us »

paulgb wrote: post #73
polka_haunts_us wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the price keeps going up, there's no bag to hold yet in this metaphor. We're still at the part of the heist where the vault is being emptied.

Let me put it this way, if someone bought GME over the last few days and sold it at 3x what they paid, what fraction of that gain (on average) came from a hedge fund covering a short vs. from another retail investor buying in? The assumption seems to be that it comes purely from a short cover but that’s not at all obvious to me.

I agree. The holding the bag metaphor comes from a gang of thieves robbing a place and then leaving a patsy behind with all the evidence of the crime and none of the loot. Right now, in my opinion, a lot of the Robinhood faction of the gang are funneling into the vault thinking Joe Wallstreet is that patsy, not realizing that the savvy senior members bailed out an hour ago and the cops are about 2 blocks over and closing. There doesn't have to be just one patsy after all.

The whole metaphor discounts the "I just want the shortsellers to burn b/c anarchy" aspect that some people are claiming, which honestly I think is believed by very few and projected onto many more who really just want quick money.

Post reply on HN