81–90 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please whomever has the power to downvote don't allow this to be the top comment, or China wins
>or China wins Could you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most stocks BTC's value depends on the buyers hope of a rise of the value. Buy low and sell high. For the original function of stocks, support a company and get a share of the profit, you are right about BTC.
That’s not really an accurate comparison. Stocks are ownership in a company, which is still subject to all of the realities of operating a company. We can’t simply continue trading Hertz stock as a speculative gamble when the company goes under. Yes, cycles of hype and supply and demand do distort stock prices, but it’s still a capital allocation market. GameStop can choose to sell shares into the hot market, much as…
Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…
Hertz was in bankruptcy because it couldnt pay its debts, a capital injection might have raised enough cash to pay off its debts and exit the bankruptcy proceedings.
They disclosed the low likelyhood of such a thing happening but its not the law or the SECs job to make everyone take wise financial decisions.
It's not worth discussing BTC, TSLA, GME, or HTZ. That is missing the forest for the trees. The degradation of even the appearance of an orderly market is the story. The money movement (volume of excess trades X magnitude of price change) seems out of reach of unleveraged retail. Faith in private and public institutions is justifiably poor, but also under organized attack. This is going to end badly for everyone, exc…
Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…
The relevant quote:
> Really I can’t decide how to feel about this. On first principles, you should not sell a billion dollars of stock in a bankrupt company to small retail investors who just installed Robinhood on their phones a few months ago. On the other hand, people are definitely doing that anyway [emphasis original]; a notable feature of this weird pandemic market is exactly that hundreds of millions of dollars of stock in Hertz, which is bankrupt, are being sold to small retail investors every day. Hertz just wants permission to do some of that selling itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GME is not bankrupt yet (it is indeed overpriced and comparable to HRTZ), but TSLA and BTC? They don't belong to the same categories. TSLA and BTC will see a lot of gains to come. Eventually without a definite date what goes up comes down but it'd be silly to not take a piece of the pie yourself and keep your savings in cash...
BTC is not a stock so I really don't follow why people keep treating it like it has some underlying value
for traders, it's something that has a ticker, a price and some volume. whatever works.
Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…
Why would it be illegal? Hertz was in bankruptcy because it couldnt pay its debts, a capital injection might have raised enough cash to pay off its debts and exit the bankruptcy proceedings. They disclosed the low likelyhood of such a thing happening but its not the law or the SECs job to make everyone take wise financial decisions.
While I do agree that it shouldn't be illegal, wouldn't they know how much money they would raise, and hence be able to determine if the capital raise would provide sufficient capital?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed nothing lasts forever but TSLA at least has something to show while GME's business is passé. TSLA is overpriced but at the moment it crashed and will jump back to new heights. Why not take advantage of the notoriety and make a gain yourself?
I think it's obvious that I am holding a substantial amount of GME right now, and I think I should disclose that. Ryan Cohen, the guy who founded Chewy, is on the board for GME and leading an initiative to transform Gamestop into an e-commerce store. In other words he wants to compete directly with Steam, and while many don't realize it yet, Amazon. And this is one of the only people in history who has successfully b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most stocks BTC's value depends on the buyers hope of a rise of the value. Buy low and sell high. For the original function of stocks, support a company and get a share of the profit, you are right about BTC.
The "original function" of stocks hasn't gone away. The S&P 500 paid out half a trillion dollars in dividends last year, and performed another half trillion or so in stock buy-backs. Trading happens on the pure derivative of stock prices, yeah, and people get rich off of it, sure, but ignoring the trillion dollars a year that flows from the profits on the economic activities of the S&P 500 back to the investors in th…
Obviously? The company was bankrupt. People who bought HRTZ after bankruptcy had to have known it was a game of financial musical chairs, much like GME, TSLA or BTC.
That seems like a bit of a simplistic view spurred on by people who don’t know what Chapter 11 is. It’s not “we don’t have any more money” or “we aren’t making any money”, it’s “we need a little court-mandated breathing room (from our creditors) to change x, y, and z, and then we’ll be ok”.
> It’s not “we don’t have any more money” or “we aren’t making any money”, it’s “we need a little court-mandated breathing room (from our creditors) to change x, y, and z, and then we’ll be ok”.
It really depends on which "we" you're talking about:
1. What you said is probably true, from the perspective of the organization itself (which includes its officers).
2. It's almost always false, from the perspective of the current shareholders. They're going to get wiped out.