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

WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

thinkingthrough.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 475 posts

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#271

Post by function_seven »

arcturus17 wrote: post #171
function_seven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They should be forced to provide the service they promised. It’s not my fault their business model is failing for a particular ticker on a particular day. If they can’t, then some advance notice is needed. Making this decision instantly without giving customers time to move their holdings elsewhere is not okay. That being said, I’m surprised people are still using them for day trading. They don’t have a great tr…

Should, as in ethically? Surely not legally.

I say legally. A broker-dealer should be required to either give advanced notice of a suspension like this, or have a clearly upfront volatility metric that triggers it. (No, a TOS statement like, "We reserve the right to suspend trading at our discretion" is not a clear rule. It's a weasel clause)

Users would then know, in advance, if a particular ticker will be restricted. Either through specific advanced notice, or because they were told that all securities that exceed a volatility of X over Y time period will be restricted.

Whatever the rule, it can't be a snap decision that leaves users with no recourse.

If you're not an appropriate day-trading app, then don't act like one until you suddenly don't want to be one anymore. Make the rules in advance, communicate them, and let the market decide if you're appropriate for their needs.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#272

Post by isatty »

arcturus17 wrote: post #233
isatty wrote: post #12

This is a poor quality submission to this forum. I've been in WSB for ages, and it was, is and will always be about the money.

It is mostly about the money, but it is also very much about memes, chicken tenders and fucking with the establishment. What these journalists got wrong or are lying about is wsb being mainly an anti-establishment movement.

Sorry, no. Memes and chicken tenders, sure, but WSB doesn’t push any agenda. Pro or against. Stop misguiding people.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#273

Post by pjc50 »

chias wrote: post #264
nlitened wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile a couple of hedge funds go under Which means that the money the hedge funds lost is redistributed among all who held the stock. It's not that the money vanishes. That's why people hold until the hedge funds go under.

That's not really how the stock market works. The money does indeed "vanish" insofar as it was ever there to begin with.

Yes. People are really not understanding unrealised gains.

It went past on Twitter that the Norwegian pension fund is up half a billion dollars as a result of this, because for some reason they'd been holding Gamestop for a while. Is that going to stick? No.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#274

Post by hawk_ »

jimbob21 wrote: post #241
totalZero wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of self-respecting HFT firm has revenue targets? Surely you're talking about P&L.

They're nearly the same thing in the hedge fund's case. Most of them take some variant of 2&20 still, so 20% of fund profits is their revenue.

HFTs are not hedgefunds and generally are marketmakers.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#275

Post by yanderekko »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #189
function_seven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They should be forced to provide the service they promised. It’s not my fault their business model is failing for a particular ticker on a particular day. If they can’t, then some advance notice is needed. Making this decision instantly without giving customers time to move their holdings elsewhere is not okay. That being said, I’m surprised people are still using them for day trading. They don’t have a great tr…

If you put the wrong oil in your car because you got it for free, and your engine failed then whose fault is it? If it's the wrong grade then it's the wrong oil, even if it says it's "high performance*". I'm a casual investor at best. I have some investments as savings through the bank, and use WealthSimple Trade here in Canada. It charges fees. It hasn't gone down. I still wouldn't trust it for any volatile action a…

>If you put the wrong oil in your car because you got it for free, and your engine failed then whose fault is it? If it's the wrong grade then it's the wrong oil, even if it says it's "high performance*".

If someone gave you that oil under fraudulent pretenses then it would absolutely be their fault..

Now to say that Robinhood is engaging in outright fraud, but having your service expectations subverted like this is going to rightfully piss people off whether or not the underlying service is free. There's all sorts of malfeasance that Robinhood could engage in with its free service that would clearly be unethical/illegal.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#276

Post by ziftface »

ghaff wrote: post #101
ryandward wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is gambling money away. The sentiment is that they are knowingly _throwing_ it away to send a message.

So you're saying they're even dumber than they appear at first glance? Sorry, but pissing money away (or actually likely giving it to some Wall Street institution) to send some ill-defined "message" really can't be called anything but dumb.

I can see all the pressure being applied to me to sell. Clearly some very rich and influential people want me to sell. This alone is enough to convince me not to. I don't care if it's dumb or it will go down to $0. I'm not budging.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#277

Post by Shivetya »

I am just waiting how long before Reddit itself gets sued over this. Let alone how long before someone comes for the users and gets a court to have reddit surrender information.

how this plays out is going to be very interesting and more so for who supports which side

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#278

Post by skocznymroczny »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #163

The endgame here is fascinating to me. The people who got in early will suffer least when GSE finally crashes and burns. But the poor suckers who bought it at $150 are going to be in big trouble. They're all trying to stay strong and hold long because that's the way to make the hedge funds suffer, but the smarter ones will figure out that their only chance to not lose their shirts is to be in the earliest 5% of scabs…

I bought at $350. It's all about the hodl.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#279

Post by 52-6F-62 »

yanderekko wrote: post #275
52-6F-62 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put the wrong oil in your car because you got it for free, and your engine failed then whose fault is it? If it's the wrong grade then it's the wrong oil, even if it says it's "high performance*". I'm a casual investor at best. I have some investments as savings through the bank, and use WealthSimple Trade here in Canada. It charges fees. It hasn't gone down. I still wouldn't trust it for any volatile action a…

>If you put the wrong oil in your car because you got it for free, and your engine failed then whose fault is it? If it's the wrong grade then it's the wrong oil, even if it says it's "high performance*". If someone gave you that oil under fraudulent pretenses then it would absolutely be their fault.. Now to say that Robinhood is engaging in outright fraud, but having your service expectations subverted like this is…

But they didn't. The oil just sat on the shelf, and they picked it out because it was free.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#280

Post by gizmondo »

philip1209 wrote: post #246
bidirectional wrote: post #19

Once again, this insistence on viewing 'Wall Street' as a monolothic entity. The largest asset management firm on Earth holds over 9 million Gamestop stock, none of the big banks that received bailouts in 08 are affected by this, 99.9% of hedge funds are not affected by this, high frequency traders are probably making a bundle. Institutional money was long Gamestop before this story entered the public consciousness.…

A lens to look at this through is - "why is short selling allowed?" Advocates cite increased "liquidity." But, does society really benefit? Short-selling really just lets trading firms extract value from the failure of others. In that sense - professional trading firms that participate in short-selling could be grouped into a monolithic "Wall Street" in the sense that they are extracting value without a benefit for s…

No, advocates cite improved "price discovery". You know, the only rational reason why stock markets exist in the first place.
Post reply on HN