131–140 of 326 posts
“Turning out to be” is a little disingenuous. It was never not worthless during its meme tenure.
Investors were warned this was going to be the outcome given Hertz’s financial situation.
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
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.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How does that come with the sum of all monies lost on trading with S&P500 shares? Serious question.
Even so, that figure isn't really relevant to the GP's point. Their point was that in addition to the price of the stocks, people who owned those stocks got cash money paid into their pockets, via dividends. That amounts to about 1.1% interest on money you spend buying the shares[1].
(That's not actually a great number. 2% is more common over the last 20 years. It suggests that as of right now the market is overpriced. But that's also for 2020, which is not a typical year. So far for 2021, it's more like 1.5%)
meanwhile GME is back to 200+
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that come with the sum of all monies lost on trading with S&P500 shares? Serious question.
The sum of all monies lost trading S&P500 shares should be negative, since the index as a whole was up. Which isn't to say it'll be up forever, but over a scale of years it has historically always been up. Even if you lost money trading S&P 500 shares, somebody else made more, which is why the index is up. Even so, that figure isn't really relevant to the GP's point. Their point was that in addition to the price of t…
(My vague understanding is that for complicated and silly reasons, many more companies have preferred stock buybacks to dividends in recent decades, but it's still money flowing back from companies to investors.)
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.
I don't know how many times I saw people claiming GME would go to $1000 because the new CEO has a brilliant new scheme to turn the company around by going digital! Why "going digital" in 2021 means your company is worth 100X what it was a few months ago I'll never quite understand. I guess no one had yet discovered the opportunity of these computer machines and the World Wide Web!
Or "it's the short squeeze" By people who didn't even know what a short was 72 hours before, long after the shorts had covered their positions.
Sure some people acknowledge they are essentially gambling in equities, but tons of people truly think they have some stunning insight into a business because of some anonymous WSB shitpost they read this morning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> We can’t simply continue trading Hertz stock as a speculative gamble when the company goes under. What? Why not? Not only can we continue to trade stock in a defunct corporation, we do . Take a look over here: https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/85889867_imperial-india...