AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains • Hacker News Board

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#201

Post by noncoml » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #80

noncoml wrote: post #43

I thought the goal was to punish the HFs that were shorting GME, which was pretty much achieved. I don’t think anyone(reasonable) was expecting the rest of the financial market to sit back and watch and miss the opportunity to join the party.

A LOT of people bought GME at $350 thinking they would get rich. Propoganda on WSB basically convinced you that it would go to $1000 next week. At some point it stopped being about hedge funds and became a standard pump and dump.

To be honest, although everyone know that the spike will not last, none of us knew how high it would go. Even $350 was out of this world.

In hindsight it's easy to give numbers like $300 or $350.

But I agree, for a lot it turned into pump and dump.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#202

Post by op00to » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #156

NicoJuicy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what I'm missing here I'm currently awaiting 9 February for the shorts interest to be released, to see if they are right or wrong. I think it's really interesting what's happening/happened. I'm not sure if I see a fallacy, that if you can hold a squeeze that another squeeze could happen if enough shorts stay open. Anyone can elaborate on that? Taking into account that shorting costs money ( 30% interest at a…

Before it was February 9 it was last Friday... ;) > Taking into account that shorting costs money, people can hold longer than shorts. And buying them would make the available pool to buy back much smaller. The volume being traded has been incredibly high, the available pool to buy hasn't been small. More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. https://finance.yahoo.com/q…

Cue “but it was always Feb 9” ignoring that Jan 29 was “dday” before that. Then after Feb 9 it’ll be some later date in case there’s still tubes to fleece.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#203

Post by op00to » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #10

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

I expect a lot of Redditors will be very disappointed when they realize just how much money hedge funds made, on average, out of this episode. The WSB moderators really did everyone a disservice by letting obvious misinformation flood the subreddit. It’s hard to view the later stages of the GameStop phenomenon as anything other than a Reddit-fueled pump and dump scheme.

> The WSB moderators really did everyone a disservice by letting obvious misinformation flood the subreddit. Well, on the flip side a lot of redditors learned from the school of hard knocks, which is the best teacher in a lot of ways. Moderators suppressing posts won't teach a lesson you can only learn by losing money.

No, the school of hard knocks isn’t a great teacher. It’s a great way for Wall Street to take more money from the tubes.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#204

Post by majormajor » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

joshgachnang wrote: post #184

majormajor wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before it was February 9 it was last Friday... ;) > Taking into account that shorting costs money, people can hold longer than shorts. And buying them would make the available pool to buy back much smaller. The volume being traded has been incredibly high, the available pool to buy hasn't been small. More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. https://finance.yahoo.com/q…

> More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much.

> This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much.

Definitely, but I haven't seen any data sources that tell us exactly that. We see that retail bought a bunch, sold a bunch, institutions bought a bunch, sold a bunch... but we don't know the full path.

And not knowing that is what makes it a huge, at-this-point-irresponsible gamble, in my mind.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#205

Post by ethzero » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

nprz wrote: post #97

ehsankia wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of "Average people" that entered near the top, and since not everyone can sell simultaneously, that means a ton of people are losing the life savings they dumped into this out of excitement as it crashed back down. I think the point being made here is that the whole narrative of "average people beating wall street" is pretty naive and quite bullshit. All in on, maybe a few handful of people got 10x o…

> that means a ton of people are losing the life savings they dumped into this out of excitement as it crashed back down Can you provide a single case of someone losing their entire life savings by YOLOing it on GME at the top?

Here's one: https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/lamgp6/give_it_to_m...

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#206

Post by yomly » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

jpsalm wrote: post #182

dougmwne wrote: post #85

Watching HN get caught up in this Gamestop bubble over the past week has been eye-opening to me about the community. The kind of information being spread around WSB was fully ridiculous. Wild conspiracy theories, financial advice with no basis in reality, astroturfing, and mob behavior. There has been an incredible amount of bleed-over between the garbage I've seen posted on WSB and the things posted in these HN thre…

> Wild conspiracy theories, financial advice with no basis in reality, astroturfing, and mob behavior. Like convincing the world that 'short ladder attacks' were a thing. https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/135807/closing-sho...

I'm not really convinced a low traffic SE article proves the opposite however.

While wsb is on the verge of going full Q'Anon, I find it equally curious how people seem to be willing to deny foul play when you have people like Jim Cramer confessing/bragging to it.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#207

Post by alasdair_ » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #94

ehsankia wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of "Average people" that entered near the top, and since not everyone can sell simultaneously, that means a ton of people are losing the life savings they dumped into this out of excitement as it crashed back down. I think the point being made here is that the whole narrative of "average people beating wall street" is pretty naive and quite bullshit. All in on, maybe a few handful of people got 10x o…

> There are plenty of "Average people" that entered near the top, and since not everyone can sell simultaneously, that means a ton of people are losing the life savings they dumped into this out of excitement as it crashed back down. Most of "average people" entered at or near the top. The ones that did not were so engaged in gambling that they did not sell when it did 20x return. Call it what it is: fear of missing…

It's completely possible that DFV has a second account that he doesn't share screenshots of, that bought puts on the stock near the peak just to hedge.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#208

Post by gopalv » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

WA wrote: post #101

dcolkitt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simple lesson. Buy and hold a low-fee index fund. Stop trying to pick stocks. And for God's sake stop trying to day trade stocks. Deviating from buy-and-hold indexing is mathematically a zero-sum game. Winning this game is also one of the most monetarily rewarding games on Earth. It's extremely unlikely that you're anywhere near good enough to win this game. If you don't know who the fool at the table is, i…

Not as simple. With buy and hold of index funds, you limit your upside. There is close to zero chance to make 1,000% within a year. Stock picking has potentially a bigger downside, but also more upside. This being a zero-sum game doesn’t matter, if you have either an edge or are simply lucky. So instead of saying it’s all bullshit, it probably makes more sense to put 90% in index funds but expose yourself to a bigger…

> This being a zero-sum game doesn’t matter, if you have either an edge or are simply lucky

Picking stocks is basically "I'm feeling lucky".

People do win the lottery and not buying a ticket prevents you from ever winning it.

The upside definitely exists, but you get emotionally invested rather than financially.

Picking stocks is good for your sense of agency in investment & feeling connected to the results of your actions - the emotional part of that shouldn't be ignored.

Trading stocks at that risk level is very much a tribal gladiatorial feeling, rather than actual financial sense.

We're actually seeing that in action recently - poor financial sense, massive entertainment value.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#209

Post by acover » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

fbelzile wrote: post #193

toolz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that most people don't realize they are always betting. Keeping your wealth tucked under your mattress in USD is still a bet. Everything is a bet and everything has different risk profiles. If someone sees that shorts in GME are over leveraged, well in hindsight they were absolutely right to buy in to this "gambling". I find the most irrational actors with regards to investing are the people who only do "safe"…

This was me. I lost money on GME betting on the fact that more shorted shares still had to be covered. The short squeeze wasn't a complete failure. It happened, it was just much smaller than many predicted. I still wonder what would've happened if Robinhood didn't shut off demand by preventing people from buying shares. My investment thesis didn't foresee this happening. I don't think anyone did. The other large part…

Note that is the short interest ratio which is different than short interest. Your link shows no data available for short interest.

Re: AMC, GameStop Give Hedge Fund Mudrick Capital $200M in Gains

#210

Post by NicoJuicy » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #194

NicoJuicy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was always 9 february to me: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=shortintpubsch ( see Dissemination date) That's an official date to release short interest. And I don't disagree with feeling good with shorting at 300-400. But none of the info you just gave me invalidates my reasoning. Considering there were 139% shorts which is way higher than the normally available pool, which we'll see on the 9th February…

Not even the lack of people holding? Tons of people were selling throughout the 1/29 settlement date for that short interest, there wasn't an unavailability of shares. If you weren't one of the people selling then, I'm not seeing what would make it better in the future. edit: we may be talking about different things here. You're suggesting that if there are still funds very exposed on shorts in the info disclosed 2/9…

Why do you try to get personal? As said before, I don't care about when to sell or buy, my financial interest in it is way too low too care about it. I just think it's interesting and try to learn from it ( that's the only reason why I even bought a little, to keep me interested).

What's your formula to state a lack of people holding vs. the amount of shorts that were outstanding?

I don't see how you can easily come to that conclusion with 139% shorts outstanding at a certain moment.

If the amount of shorts were lessened to 50%, which we'll know on 9 February i can agree.

But I can't know for sure now and i want to know with what logic "you can" be sure.

Edit: Yes, I'm suggesting that there are "possibly" still a large amount of shorts and that I can't know till 9 February to see what could happen.

If the amount of shorts is low, than GME will continue to drop to a normal value.

If it's high, it depends on when the shorts were initiated, so it's still unclear then.

There's just a higher possibility to dismiss a potential squeeze on the 9th of February.

So I'm looking for additional info why people can already dismiss this reasoning.

Edit 2: ( can't reply on your comment)

I agree, there's a lot of uncertainty in it... A lot of "unknowns" for now.

I'm just careful dismissing it as a pure meme though. Since I can't fully dismiss it as such and I'm open to additional info surrounding this ( hence my original question).