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

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#161

Post by chii »

remarkEon wrote: post #152
numair wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I’ll take the bait. As someone with direct experience with the topic at hand, who has worked with / remains friends with people with direct experience regarding the subject of this conversation, I can say that many of the assertions of the parent ring true to me. And, in fact, the stuff you don’t know is even worse .

What does this have to do with what he said? Steve Jobs, the example that always gets invoked here, was a horrible human being. Did that make him wrong? No, it didn't, it made him an asshole. And Chamath being an asshole doesn't make him wrong here either. Is Chamath Steve Jobs? No, but who cares. I found what he said interesting, and probably right in ways that make people uncomfortable. Which probably explains why…

> Which probably explains why folks are bringing up his love life.

yep - people here wants those who are virtuous to be more successful than those who aren't. 'cept in real life, there's no correlation, and logically there wouldn't be. In fact, the more of an asshole you are, the more likely you'd be able to take advantage of people to succeed.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#162

Post by chii »

paxys wrote: post #14

Wall 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.

> a public-backed safety net.

there is no safety net for hedge funds (or indeed, any investment company that's not a proper deposit taking bank). The GFC was an anomaly - and banks got bailed out for taking on risks that they shouldn't have been (and only some - lehmens got owned and they didn't get bailed out). The bailouts were more about stablizing rather than saving the gov't buddies, despite what the conspiracy narrative likes to make (of course, it _did_ save the banks, so believe what you will).

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#163

Post by wolfretcrap »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #96

What I don't get is that, if this trade (140% short) was really so obviously wrong. Could a wealthy hedge fund not simply have made the same bet as the million strong WSB army, but even more pronounced? Why isn't a Carl Icahn short squeezing these guys if it's so easy and obvious? Simply buying calls and buying stocks and forcing a short squeeze, could a bigger established fund have made this bet? I think the general…

>I think the general answer would be no, because at the end this fund would be a bagholder of $350 stock that's worth about $30, and when trying to get rid of it the price would crash down

Explain why they'll be holding $350 stock when the hedge fund who was shorting the stock has obligation to return all the stock that it borrowed. All these stocks will leave them, so why it matters if the stock is $350

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#164

Post by nceqs3 »

loceng wrote: post #135
scumcity wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, that is nonsense. Palantir's success, for example, is entirely due to covid. It would still not have IPO'ed today without the insanity taking place today due to the fed buying corporate bonds and keeping insane/illogical interest rates in place. Time is valuable, unless you live in the fed's mind.

How due to COVID?

Retail buying frenzy. PLTR has become a meme stock.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#165

Post by nceqs3 »

mysore wrote: post #147
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…

man you dont know this guy or his life story. people say all kinds of stuff in books. who cares about his dating/marriage life? That is really low to bring that kind of stuff up in this context. the fact that this is the highest comment speaks to how toxic this community has become. His "VC" fund is a social good company that prioritizes people's wellfare over profits. and who cares if its a success or failure, VC is…

I do know his life story because he tells it in every interview he gives. I understand what you are trying to say but just because I have not met him doesn't mean that I can't criticize him.

His VC fund had LPs that lost money. I don't think they really give a shit about "welfare over profits". Once it's a family office yeah sure preach about welfare over profits but remember he had a fiduciary responsibility to his LPs which he (likely) broke.

"No more real discussion". This is what real discussion looks like. People LOVE chamath and I am explaining what I see is wrong about him.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#166

Post by [deleted] »

numair wrote: post #151
mysore wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

man you dont know this guy or his life story. people say all kinds of stuff in books. who cares about his dating/marriage life? That is really low to bring that kind of stuff up in this context. the fact that this is the highest comment speaks to how toxic this community has become. His "VC" fund is a social good company that prioritizes people's wellfare over profits. and who cares if its a success or failure, VC is…

Okay, I’ll take the bait. As someone with direct experience with the topic at hand, who has worked with / remains friends with people with direct experience regarding the subject of this conversation, I can say that many of the assertions of the parent ring true to me. And, in fact, the stuff you don’t know is even worse .

[deleted]

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#167

Post by aaron695 »

numair wrote: post #151
mysore wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

man you dont know this guy or his life story. people say all kinds of stuff in books. who cares about his dating/marriage life? That is really low to bring that kind of stuff up in this context. the fact that this is the highest comment speaks to how toxic this community has become. His "VC" fund is a social good company that prioritizes people's wellfare over profits. and who cares if its a success or failure, VC is…

Okay, I’ll take the bait. As someone with direct experience with the topic at hand, who has worked with / remains friends with people with direct experience regarding the subject of this conversation, I can say that many of the assertions of the parent ring true to me. And, in fact, the stuff you don’t know is even worse .

Adults will go to HN articles on Chamath Palihapitiya the person to discuss these issues.

The actual problem as hinted, is it gets upvoted.

It's how Twitter has become the toxic mess it is devaluing actual content.

To grow people need to go through this stage, but it's hard to know were they can do it. Like an off topic tag.

The comment "The guy is a stock promoter through and through" was an interesting accusation and on topic, but it's lost now.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#168

Post by syrrim »

wolfretcrap wrote: post #163
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #96

What I don't get is that, if this trade (140% short) was really so obviously wrong. Could a wealthy hedge fund not simply have made the same bet as the million strong WSB army, but even more pronounced? Why isn't a Carl Icahn short squeezing these guys if it's so easy and obvious? Simply buying calls and buying stocks and forcing a short squeeze, could a bigger established fund have made this bet? I think the general…

>I think the general answer would be no, because at the end this fund would be a bagholder of $350 stock that's worth about $30, and when trying to get rid of it the price would crash down Explain why they'll be holding $350 stock when the hedge fund who was shorting the stock has obligation to return all the stock that it borrowed. All these stocks will leave them, so why it matters if the stock is $350

Granting that I'm not really familiar with these things, it seems like the short sellers simply don't have the money to cover their positions at $350/share. They could try to buy back all the stocks, but they would run out of money long before they finished. Given that, they would most likely skip the crap and jump straight to declaring bankruptcy. So it doesn't seem like they really need to buy the stock at $350. At a lower price, where they could feasibly pay for it all, they might give it a go, but as it stands there is no chance. I haven't seen anyone else saying this, but I also don't see any way around it.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#169

Post by jjcm »

dang wrote: post #131
dang wrote: post #12

The stack on this story so far (newest ones at the bottom—if I've missed any, can you let me know at hn@ycombinator.com? this is sort of an experiment and we may eventually write software to support building lists like this collaboratively): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25932598 ("Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904779 ("How WallStreetBets Pushed GameStop…

(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the topic at hand.)

As usual, thanks for your excellent moderation here on HN dang. You're going above and beyond with the timeline of past submissions.

Re: Chamath Palihapitiya on Wallstreetbets [audio]

#170

Post by chrledntsurf »

paulgb wrote: post #25
in3d wrote: post #16

He 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.

I anticipate ours won’t be a popular opinion on here, because the whole “stick it to the man” narrative is tempting, but I have to agree. I listened in on a Clubhouse room today where people were teaching each other how to options trade and I couldn’t help but think, these are the people, not Wall Street, who are going to be left holding the bag.

there is always someone left holding the bag. welcome to life.
Post reply on HN