61–70 of 410 posts
> On Wednesday Melvin said it had exited its bet against GameStop and repositioned its portfolio. The firm moved to reduce risk in its investments following a turbulent start to January when it lost 30 percent in the first three weeks. Melvin’s leverage ratio is at the lowest it has been since the firm’s founding in 2014, said a source familiar with the firm. The news of Melvin’s January performance was first reporte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't spend money on ads saying "we no longer have a financial stake in this stock" I don't think they did. The source of this meme seems to be a Twitter ad from CNBC that was teasing an interview with a quote to that effect. That's a CNBC ad selling their show, they don't take paid ads from their guests.
> they don't take paid ads from their guests. How do you know this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is somewhat important to describe how these people are not acting rationally or individually and how these internet groups can group together to have very powerful and unusual effects.
>not acting rationally Lots of participants understand what they are doing and are achieving their stated goals (causing chaos). There’s nothing internally inconsistent or irrational about the behaviour to the individuals. Maybe it’s irrational if you transpose your own form of rationality to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should consider at least editing this post given that it has a massive inaccuracy in it, i.e. that Melvin Capital bought ads to communicate not having a position in GME. That was CNBC.
I'll double down for you and it will really melt you brain- they paid Ars in this article to say they have covered their shorts. To think hedge funds wouldnt do such a thing when so much is riding on this, is extremely naive.
You agree they're motivated by money, right? They would have lost literally all their money, even with the additional investment, if they were still in when GME soared to $400. They would also be aware of that fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general assumption on WSB is that Melvin Capital is lying and that they haven't closed their positions. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they've closed it, and have seen circumstantial evidence suggesting they have not. You don't spend money on ads saying "we no longer have a financial stake in this stock" unless you, you know, have a financial stake in this stock. Considering this is a hedge fund, I just a…
The way that WSB has latched onto Melvin as their enemy is to their detriment. It was never about killing Melvin capital, or at least, it shouldn't have been. It ought to have been about the ridiculous short interest on the stock, regardless of who was funding it. Whether or not Melvin specifically has covered their shorts is irrelevant to how the short interest as a percentage of float has changed in the past week.…
How much evidence is there that the "reddit onslaught" actually moved the price, as opposed to them being the stalking horse for more sophisticated actors with more capital exercising a vanilla short squeeze strategy?
This is not a just simple “Redditors keep buying shares” story
It's really strange. Why would they openly announce that they have closed shorts and that they are sustaining damage so publicly? My theory is that they are not only doubling down but quadrupling down everytime the stock shoots up. Gamestop has no fundamentals going for it, take a look at its other competitors in the industry, they are all gone. Neither do cases for AMC (who themselves acknowledged and WARNED investo…
> My theory is that they are not only doubling down but quadrupling down everytime the stock shoots up. They would not have survived Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday if they doubled down once instead of closing out, let alone if they did it on every significant increase. Even if you cite the investment from Point72 and Citadel: that's a fraction of what they'd have needed to survive the stock going from $100 to $300+.
How much evidence is there that the "reddit onslaught" actually moved the price, as opposed to them being the stalking horse for more sophisticated actors with more capital exercising a vanilla short squeeze strategy?
Create a bigger, more sinister enemy...and you can have the crowds on your side.
How much evidence is there that the "reddit onslaught" actually moved the price, as opposed to them being the stalking horse for more sophisticated actors with more capital exercising a vanilla short squeeze strategy?
How much evidence is there that the "reddit onslaught" actually moved the price, as opposed to them being the stalking horse for more sophisticated actors with more capital exercising a vanilla short squeeze strategy?
Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this? I have seen similar comments elsewhere but don't really understand what is being suggested.