241–250 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And GOOG seems to be doing okay.
Amusingly, the voting shares are currently worth less than the nonvoting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't understand why these kinds of derivatives are not banned. They're, as you described, basically betting. Except for a handful of folks, everybody loses money on them. The ones that do make money are rigging the game (à la casinos) or are just lucky. Some of the lucky ones have been lucky for decades, some even went bankrupt after being lucky for so long.
Insurance is basically a bet that your house will go on fire, and everybody loses money on them (expected value). Should they be banned as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't understand why these kinds of derivatives are not banned. They're, as you described, basically betting. Except for a handful of folks, everybody loses money on them. The ones that do make money are rigging the game (à la casinos) or are just lucky. Some of the lucky ones have been lucky for decades, some even went bankrupt after being lucky for so long.
Why does it follow that they should be banned if it's just betting? Except for a handful of folks, everybody loses money doing that as well.
I think sports betting in general is on the rise, at least in Europe, and I can't imagine it having positive financial or psychological effects for the average person.
It's a predatory business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the SEC data on FTDs, there have been a huge number of them for GME in the past year https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm So that kind of points towards a possibility of naked shorts, if I understand correctly (although by itself it doesn't prove it's happening).
Dec 2020, second half: SETTLEMENT DATE|CUSIP|SYMBOL|QUANTITY(FAILS)|DESCRIPTION|PRICE 20201215|36467W109|GME|170655|GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A|12.72 Not very rich data. I wonder how much of that comes from market-makers versus hedge funds.
$ cat cnsfails202012[ab].txt | csvgrep -d '|' -c SYMBOL -r '^GME$' | csvcut -c 'QUANTITY (FAILS)' | sed 1d | paste -sd+ | bc -l
14276093
Recent events have a lot of people confusing high short interest with naked shorting. A stock can have short interest greater than 100% without any naked shorting. How is this possible? The textbook definition of a "short sale" is that someone borrows stock and then, literally, sells it short. The buyer of the stock is free and clear to do whatever they want with the stock, including re-lend it for another short sale…
Wow, how has nobody noticed this before? This looks seriously rotten: > Michigan-based entrepreneur Robert Simpson decided to see what would happen if he bought the entire stock of one company. Using a single broker, within a couple of days Simpson had paid a little over $5,000 for 1,285,050 shares in OTC bulletin board property-development company Global Links. According to Simpson, these shares were delivered into…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The broker needs your agreement to lend out stock. Generally that's only part of the agreement for margin accounts, not cash accounts.
I thought most of the online brokers had it by default now? Isn't it part of the "no commission but we do literally anything else to make a buck" business model? If not then he either doesn't own all the stock or there is some fraud here. As it is, it's the simplest explanation and one he hasn't ruled out. So he needs to check there first. It's possible they lent it by mistake or he agreed as part of the 10,000 page…
Recent events have a lot of people confusing high short interest with naked shorting. A stock can have short interest greater than 100% without any naked shorting. How is this possible? The textbook definition of a "short sale" is that someone borrows stock and then, literally, sells it short. The buyer of the stock is free and clear to do whatever they want with the stock, including re-lend it for another short sale…
I’ve seen that explained on WSB. I don’t think there’s much confusion about it. Nonetheless, SI being that high will inevitably drive the price up to unwind, and take quite some time to unwind. The evidence of naked shorts (which Market Makers are permitted to do to enable liquidity) seems primarily based on FTDs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the total long position > 100% of issued shares, who gets denied voting rights?
Whomever is the holder record has the voting rights. If you gave your stock to someone to facilitate a short you lose your voting rights until that position is closed. You can read more about it here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortsalevotingr...
Or must you manually opt in, to allow it to be loaned out for shorting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They often do, but they don't have to. You can write an uncovered call, if you're brave or stupid -- after all, worst case you'll just market buy the shares to deliver on the day the option is tendered.
No, worst case is nobody is selling shares on that day. Thats the exact scenario wsb is hoping to create.