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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 313 posts

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

#301

Post by cromka »

Traster wrote: post #292
ditonal wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracies happen so frequently on Wall St that “conspiracy theories” should be closer to a priori assumption than irrational fringe ideas. Were people skeptical of Moodys A+ ratings of subprime mortgages conspiracy theorists? And that’s far from the only example of financial fraud . There’s a lot of money at stake. Citadel is most of Robinhoods revenue, they put money on the opposite side of the trade via Melvin,…

>Conspiracies happen so frequently on Wall St that “conspiracy theories” should be closer to a priori assumption than irrational fringe ideas. This is not good logic. There may be a lot of dodgy stuff going on and there may even be conspiracies, but even if you accept that there is a conspiracy that doesn't make it any more likely that the conspiracies being peddled by WSB are correct. It's like I pick a card out of…

What you described is called "ad hominem" fallacy.

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

#302

Post by Traster »

cromka wrote: post #301
Traster wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Conspiracies happen so frequently on Wall St that “conspiracy theories” should be closer to a priori assumption than irrational fringe ideas. This is not good logic. There may be a lot of dodgy stuff going on and there may even be conspiracies, but even if you accept that there is a conspiracy that doesn't make it any more likely that the conspiracies being peddled by WSB are correct. It's like I pick a card out of…

What you described is called "ad hominem" fallacy.

It's absolutely not, I know nothing about the guy on WSB, it's not an attack against him to simply say that the average person on the internet claiming something extremely unlikely is just most likely lying.

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

#303

Post by NicoJuicy »

op00to wrote: post #202
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…

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.

?

9 february is the date the short numbers are released for publication. Why would it be 29 january?

It's not a final date either, it's a date that more is known and people can act on that info.

You can always check the link I gave to see why... Since you obviously didn't.

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

#304

Post by WA »

yibg wrote: post #279
WA wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

same can be said for investing in lotteries. Also more upside, and if you're lucky, well that's all you need. So why not put 90% of your money into index funds and use the remaining 10% to buy lottery tickets?

Because the chance for return is so small with lottery tickets. Futhermore: Most people don't need $50 million but rather 50k-500k. It makes sense to pick a bet with better odds.

10% in a stock that has a 50% chance of better performance than the SPX? Sounds reasonable.

Or an event-driven trade where you do a short-term bet on a thing. These opportunities don't come very often, but once in a while, they do. Why not expose yourself to them?

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

#305

Post by betterunix2 »

dheera wrote: post #282
betterunix2 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, there is no such thing as a free market, certainly not in the capital markets. There are mountains of regulations covering stock, options, futures, and debt trades. Trading is routinely halted on various securities in extreme circumstances. Insider trading is restricted, and the restrictions become more significant for higher level management. Companies are required to report certain information to the…

I guess my main question is, why does the stock price go up if mountains of people suddenly buy a stock? It's because we base pricing based on a simple free market order book algorithm. If the markets enforced a pricing algorithm that included certain time-based functions instead of basing it purely out of the order book, and mandate that all transactions happen at the algorithm's determined price (instead of the fre…

"The price" is just a convenient way to talk about the theoretical "value" of a company. Brokers use it to determine whether or not margin maintenance requires are being met, but in reality there is no single price at any given time. There are always two prices, the highest bid and the lowest ask, and those two prices are only meaningful for the size of the bid/ask in the order book.

How would an algorithm determine the price? The whole point of the equity markets is price discovery. The price should rise when people rush to buy, and it should fall when people rush to sell. In many cases that is the "right thing," in the sense that the rush to buy/sell is in response to a real change in a company's circumstances (e.g. an outstanding earnings report, a natural disaster that harms the business, etc.).

Limiting the execution of a large order would not stop insider trading, because you do not need to go to equity markets to buy/sell stock -- you can enter into a private agreement with someone to transfer shares in exchange for money. Limiting large order executions would also make index funds impossible -- index funds have to trade the stocks that make up the underlying index when customers buy or sell, and a large fund may have many individual customers buying or selling on any given day.

Not all problems can be solved with technology.

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

#306

Post by headsupftw »

optimalsolver wrote: post #190
jb775 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hindsight is 20/20. Being the guy on the sidelines saying "I knew this was gonna happen" after the fact never adds any value. It's you trying to make yourself feel special. If you were so confident in your predictions, show me where you shorted the stock and made a bunch of money off it going down. If not, please stfu with your grandmom truisms.

How much did you lose?

How much did you make?

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

#307

Post by xapata »

toast0 wrote: post #181
xapata wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So strange that YOLO has come to mean the opposite of what one would do if worried about the fact one only lives once. But I guess that's true for much slang.

YOLO has always meant, you only live once, gotta try everything. Not you only live once, make it last as long as possible and never do anything dangerous or with possible (probable even) negative repercussions.

Some choices are mutually exclusive. It seems common, but in my view (intentionally?) ironic, to use the term in those contexts.

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

#308

Post by 015a »

sokoloff wrote: post #129
dcolkitt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the HN hype train might cause you some headaches from picking an immature tech stack. Whereas the WSB echo chamber has literally ruined thousands of people's lives and retirements.

If someone is going to ruin their life or retirement based proximately to posts in a Reddit forum, it’s very hard for me to assign root cause to the Reddit forum. At most that’s the first or second “Why?” but there is surely a deeper issue.

Who in here ever said they were trying to assign a root cause or place blame? I just said that they're icky.

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

#309

Post by cromka »

Traster wrote: post #302
cromka wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you described is called "ad hominem" fallacy.

It's absolutely not, I know nothing about the guy on WSB, it's not an attack against him to simply say that the average person on the internet claiming something extremely unlikely is just most likely lying.

What I was referring to is this:

"I tell you my card is 7 of spades but I have a history of lying. Most likely, the card isn't the 7 of spades. But that doesn't mean it's likely that the card is the 9 of diamonds."

I suggested that such reasoning could, in a nutshell, be summarized as "ad hominem".

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

#310

Post by notyourday »

llampx wrote: post #296
notyourday wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that retail was restricted to selling and hedge funds were not, further corroborates foul play. It was not. Only retail that played in a couple of YOLO gamified market brokerages that was restricted.

Many retail brokers all over the world restricted buying of GME and other stocks in that time period.

All of those retail brokers used the same clearing brokers.
Post reply on HN