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

Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#41

Post by danuker »

mcv wrote: post #20
rvanmil wrote: post #6

There are still many retail investors who think the saga is far from over, and are now betting on direct registration (DRS) of their GME shares with the goal of triggering another, much bigger short squeeze than last year.

I made a little money of it last year when the squeeze squoze, and I don't see it happening again. I was late to get in, but not too late; the next morning, the price had doubled, so I sold half. I held on to the rest just to be along for the ride, but I think that morning was the real squeeze. I think I bought some extra on a dip, sold half of that for double again, and sold the rest on a minor bump a few months lat…

> remember to buy the dips

As long as the dip is not permanent, say, due to a permanent change in the fundamentals. Then it might just keep dipping.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#42

Post by Kaspar1313 »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #33
goldnugget92 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its easily dismissed as conspiracy but having read many of their supporting arguments and seeing the SI (Short Interest) being over 220% myself along with the SEC report suggesting that shorts never closed their position... I can't say I would dismiss the possibility of another short squeeze...

Where do you see a short interest of 220%? Checking yahoo finance now it's listed at around 20%.

They've changed the way the calculate SI now.

Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float]

Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float]

Ask yourself, why...

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#44

Post by danuker »

simpleguitar wrote: post #31
carnitine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think not a single institutional investor has rallied behind this cause? Hedge funds love fucking each other over and would embrace popularity with the public. Why hasn’t some firm with a few billion under management taken up this cause if there’s really anything there?

Because that would be illegal market manipulation. Any institute, including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze. The SEC rules on this is quite clear. What's interesting to me is that the official SEC report on GameStop "squeeze" specifically called out that the rise in price WAS NOT due to short covering, but rather a large increase in retail buying and market…

How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others.

Is there any law or ruling you can point out to?

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#45

Post by capableweb »

danuker wrote: post #44
simpleguitar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that would be illegal market manipulation. Any institute, including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze. The SEC rules on this is quite clear. What's interesting to me is that the official SEC report on GameStop "squeeze" specifically called out that the rise in price WAS NOT due to short covering, but rather a large increase in retail buying and market…

How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others. Is there any law or ruling you can point out to?

> How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others.

I don't think (but someone correct me as I'm no professional) the occurrence of short squeezes are illegal, unless there is a knowing collusion behind it (check previous cases from courts regarding collusion to trigger short squeezes). What is illegal is naked shorting (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regsho.asp) which could be a trigger/condition to future squeezes..

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#46

Post by BYazfVCcq »

goldnugget92 wrote: post #21
mixologic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, yet not even cool enough to get its own phrase in the zeitgeist like "Drink the Kool-Aid"

Its easily dismissed as conspiracy but having read many of their supporting arguments and seeing the SI (Short Interest) being over 220% myself along with the SEC report suggesting that shorts never closed their position... I can't say I would dismiss the possibility of another short squeeze...

You should take the time to read the SEC Report

"In seeking to answer this question, staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses. During these times, short sellers covering their positions likely contributed to increases in GME’s price. For example, staff observed that particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the short interest decreased. Staff also observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares, in some cases accounting for very significant portions of the net buying pressure during a period. Figure 6 shows that buy volume in GME, including buy volume from participants identified as having large short positions, increased significantly beginning around January 22 and remained high for several days, corresponding to the beginning of the most dramatic phase of the run-up in GME’s price."

Meaning shorts covering causing a small increase in price and then retail FOMOd in.

See also the graph on the next page that show short interest dropping from over 100% to around 20%.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#47

Post by GVRV »

ggambetta wrote: post #4

It was a weird, fun ride. My writing partner Lutz and I work in tech, but have a real passion for filmmaking. We lost some money on $GME, so we had to tell the story from our point of view. The result is STONKS, a comedy/drama feature screenplay [0], fictional but inspired by the GME events, and a love letter of sorts to WSB. We queried Hollywood producers but were ignored; we shared on WSB itself but we were insta-b…

I read a few pages and found it really good (maybe cause I was following the saga online)! I hope I get to see it on the big screen!

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#48

Post by mupuff1234 »

goldnugget92 wrote: post #38
mupuff1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see a short interest of 220%? Checking yahoo finance now it's listed at around 20%.

Here is a archine from Jan 14, 2020 showing 101% of float SI. https://web.archive.org/web/20200114081942/https://www.marke... The 220% was in Feb.

The site you linked shows the short interest is currently at 14%.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#49

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Kaspar1313 wrote: post #42
mupuff1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see a short interest of 220%? Checking yahoo finance now it's listed at around 20%.

They've changed the way the calculate SI now. Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float] Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float] Ask yourself, why...

> They've changed the way the calculate SI now

This is nonsense. Who is “they”?

FINRA and the SEC require brokers to report short interest data twice a month [1]. These are share aggregates. FINRA then provides those data for U.S.-listed companies to the exchanges, who publish it. None of those exchanges have changed their publishing methodologies in years.

[1] https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/short-interest

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#50

Post by raxxorrax »

netcan wrote: post #17

$GME was always going to be a "Revolution That Wasn’t." Almost everyone playing knew it. IMO, it was kind of an exemplifier of postmodernism, used colloquially. All the "beat down hedgies" stuff was just part of the game, just like "fuck the fundamentals" was part of the game. IMO it has had an influence. A neurotic, dramatic lens through which we can look at financial institutions, more abstract economics. What is c…

I think it should started a discussion about some excesses of the stock market. Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once. Out of their own motives for profit or just for fun to be able to at least once stick it to speculators looking for easy profit. That trading was halted and "corrected" proved they had an impact.

I don't think the stock market serves a public function with these mechanisms in place and needs further regulation.

Post reply on HN