361–370 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NBC has double the primetime product placement of it's next nearest competitor, fox. https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00101603/00001
That's about fictional TV shows, not news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with puts is they can expire before this calms down. If you can get a short in and not get a margin call this is the opportunity of a lifetime. Only the biggest players dare risk it though.
This is true, but you can also go broke if you mess up your entry point. What if it happens to triple before it falls back down? Will you have the ability to sustain those losses, psychologically and financially? I knew a guy that wound up going short on a stock that was going to the moon. He was down almost a years salary at one point. I'd rather go with a longer-term put option to keep the risk under control. It ju…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree; its important to keep in mind that GME's total market cap, even after all of this, is only ~$22B. A 140% short position is bad (even if that's the real number, which I doubt), but in the scope of all things, not world-ending. Some hedge funds will die from this, and we'll probably have a few weeks of overall market downturn similar to last year, but we're not talking about "the entire US real estate market"…
Let's also absorb the fact that one firm can "lose" 22B in value and no one involved feels directly hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with puts is they can expire before this calms down. If you can get a short in and not get a margin call this is the opportunity of a lifetime. Only the biggest players dare risk it though.
There are long-dated puts that expire 1-3 years from now. In what world would this not calm down before then?
I have no idea where we are in this bubble. The timeline will only be known a few years after it pops. There may be false pops on the way up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because closing their position is not what any sane shorter wants to do. The bottom line of GameStop sucks baddly. Anyone who can add to their shorts stands to make a fortune in a few months after this all calms down. Though they might have seen what was happening and exited at 50 to reenter at 300. That would be incredible foresight.
Why do you think short squeezes happen? It’s not because shorts are being insane and covering. They are literally forced to. You have buying for reasons that aren’t commercial and that’s why short squeezes are so bloody.
edit: originially I said they could carry 200% short, but that is not true. The biggest funds I can find could alone have shorted 30% of a GME at $3 and be okay at $300, but going much above that price or percentage of GME shorted would be a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
20B in volume in a single trading day and people still think this is just retail. Sheesh.
2-3 weeks ago when share prices were around $17, GME had a market cap of less than 1.2B. WSB has 7.6 million users now, but I assume it went up a lot recently. Say 2 million of them bought some GME. To buy 50% of the shares a couple weeks ago it would have only taken $296 each. So they could ABSOLUTELY get prices moving significantly. Now of course lots more people have jumped on now. But that 20B volume number is af…
I keep seeing this metric everywhere, it's irrelevant, $GME became a meme stock, people are joining the sub to check out the fun, not to invest. Max 1% of them are really investing anything of value.
It should be noted that Melvin Capital returned over 50% in 2020[1], 44% in 2019[2], and has averaged above 30% annual returns since inception[3]. In other words, even though this is definitely painful, even inclusive of this event, it's one of the best performing hedge funds of the past decade. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/…
Context is important, so the Nasdaq 100 (as represented by the QQQ ETF) returned ~49% in 2020, 39% in 2019, and 24% over the last 5 years. Beating the indexes by 5-6 points consistently is very good, but it's important to keep in mind that most equities were doing really well over that period. (Edit: It's been reported elsewhere that these numbers are net of fees. However, it's entirely possible that for taxable acco…
That is, if I started with $1 and made $1,000, a 50% loss would still be $500
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if I gained 50%, 44%, followed by a 53% loss with a 2% fee, I'd be under water for the last 3 years, but the sp500 would have yielded me a 37% gain - virtually no fees. I'd rather the sp500 over these guys
This is the point Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes in his book Fooled by Randomness. In a long enough timeline luck plays a big part in performance. People or firms like Melvin can perform well in a short timeline but when you stretch the timeline out the reality becomes clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Say 2 million of them bought some GME. I think you are off by one or two orders of magnitude. I'd wager that a full half of the subscribers haven't even opened reddit in the last week.
Well considering it's currently at 7.8 million subscribers, and a week ago it was 2.1 million subscribers [1] I'd love to know how 4 million redditors subscribed without opening reddit [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210125060034/https://www.reddi...