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

141–150 of 250 posts

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

#141

Post by FabHK »

raxxorrax wrote: post #50
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

The purpose is precisely to zoom in on the correct value of a stock (via crowdsourcing and putting your money where your mouth is), and thereby allow investment to flow to the most advantageous opportunities.

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

#142

Post by odonnellryan »

kasey_junk wrote: post #115
odonnellryan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GME isn't in the SPX

They are in sp400 which also makes them a constituent of sp1000. Further they are in sptmi which massive etfs like vanguards vti & blackrocks itot are benchmarked against st.

Ah sorry - for some reason I thought you said SP500. Should not comment before coffee :(

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

#143

Post by odonnellryan »

SteveNuts wrote: post #120
odonnellryan wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why will an NFT marketplace do any of those things?

Valve essentially stopped making games because selling virtual items is so insanely profitable. Being able to sell digital rights to items and then take a sellers fee no matter what platform that item is resold on later could be a huge deal, if that's what they're building.

You can do that today, NFTs don't give you anything except memes and complexity. What do NFTs give GME that companies like Valve aren't already doing?

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

#144

Post by gruez »

rccb2002 wrote: post #108
rekoil wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen there are now ~122,000 accounts for DRSed shares, and even if the average numbers we're seeing on reddit hold for all accounts (which I doubt), that's still only around ~18M shares, or 28% using your numbers. That's a lot, but it only matters when it reaches 100%. I don't want to spread negativity, I have a bit of money invested as well on the off chance that the theories are true, but I'm placing…

Just to clarify my original statement, I did not mean to imply that after the 4th quarter results come in, that another squeeze will immediately happen. I've always thought that this would take some time (i.e. DRSing the float). I don't think it necessarily has to reach 100% (although that would fantastic) I do think the higher the number climbs, the harder it will be for investors and regulators to ignore. DRSing sh…

>I've always thought that this would take some time (i.e. DRSing the float).

Is there any expectation that the number of DRSed shares will continue to climb, rather than asymptotically approach some arbitrary number? At this point you'd think everyone who wanted to DRS their shares already did it, so for that number to increase you either have to target stragglers (not many of them), or buy more shares (I doubt folks on superstonk have enough free cashflow to pull that off).

>I do think the higher the number climbs, the harder it will be for investors and regulators to ignore.

>DRSing shares will reveal irrefutable, easy-to-digest proof that there is illegal naked shorting of Gamestop.

Like, illegal naked shorting that's happening right now? I saw in other comments that the short interest is 20% or 14%. It's pretty obvious that you don't need to do naked short selling to get that kind of short interest. Not to mention, > 100% short interest isn't indicative of naked short selling either, because the same share can be lent over and over again.

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

#145

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

ashurov wrote: post #99
shlant wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. "time will tell" meaning GME ideologues will continue to move the goalpost for when the MOASS will happen in perpetuity.

I don't necessarily believe in MOASS happening anymore, but I do have a strong believe that introducing an NFT marketplace and what else GME has in store will make sure the long term view for this company is optimistic. Wallstreet might have "won", but it seems that SEC is introducing new bills to prevent some of the stuff that was going on.. Hopefully they will start enforcing it as well.

A more jaded individual would see the introduction of elements like an NFT store to be less long term planning and more capitalizing on its new fan base which is heavily jaded with the current system and so prone to accepting opportunities to upset the market, regardless of actual merit.

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

#146

Post by odonnellryan »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #140
SteveNuts wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve essentially stopped making games because selling virtual items is so insanely profitable. Being able to sell digital rights to items and then take a sellers fee no matter what platform that item is resold on later could be a huge deal, if that's what they're building.

I wouldn't agree with that, but even accepting that premise as true, why would gamestop be in any position to benefit from this? If you're, say, activision, why would you possibly sell your digital content on gamestop's platform where you owe gamestop a cut rather than on your own platform where you get the cut? Why would you put it on a blockchain at all? Just use your own boring db.

More than that, it is taking a decentralized tech and centralizing it. The point of this benefitting GME is because it would be a market they absolutely control (so they can get a cut of the profits). What's the point of a crypto tech in that case?

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

#147

Post by gruez »

rekoil wrote: post #129
rccb2002 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify my original statement, I did not mean to imply that after the 4th quarter results come in, that another squeeze will immediately happen. I've always thought that this would take some time (i.e. DRSing the float). I don't think it necessarily has to reach 100% (although that would fantastic) I do think the higher the number climbs, the harder it will be for investors and regulators to ignore. DRSing sh…

Yeah but only 100% DRS reveals illegal naked shorting right?

That's the thesis, but it doesn't really hold.

>“Some commentators have asked how short interest can get as high as it did in GameStop. Short interest can exceed 100%—as it did with GME—when the same shares are lent multiple times by successive purchasers. If someone purchases a stock from a short seller and subsequently lends the stock out again, it will appear as if the stock was sold short twice for the purpose of the short interest calculation.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-19/matt-l...

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

#148

Post by Unbeliever69 »

a254613e wrote: post #67
ashurov wrote: post #62

I have seen so much fuckery with the stock price and ridiculous headlines in het media about GME that can't really believe that we have seen the actual squeeze. Furthermore, the SEC report said that the price run-up was because retail bought in, not because the hedge funds closed their positions. So when did they do this and went from 200% to 20%? Besides all of that, the fundamentals for GME are great. They are hiri…

This reads exactly like the comments on conspiracy theory subreddits like Superstonk.

For those of us not in the know, what is the prevailing conspiracy theory on Superstonk?

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

#149

Post by FabHK »

brink wrote: post #124
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #116

Because of my GameStop stock play, I am finally debt free for the first time in my life (after 35 years of paying). No car loan, no college loans, no mortgage. It actually felt good to pay over $10k in taxes for short term gains.

And others lost their life savings. Some win, some loose. Congrats on paying off all your debts though, that's amazing.

Yes. Insofar as trading helps reveal the "true" value of a stock and thereby helps solving the allocation problem, it creates public benefit. And the companies financed by the equity markets create huge value, of course (parts of which they distribute by dividends or stock buy backs). But if you look narrowly at the gains and losses of trading, it's strictly a zero-sum game (well, negative sum, as the exchanges and market makers take their cut - though that cut in the good old equity markets is minuscule and far, far smaller than in the fancy new crypto exchanges which charge outrageous fees.)

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

#150

Post by FabHK »

dchftcs wrote: post #74
djtango wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure market makers have made a killing off option premiums, especially once they realized the way to kill a gamma squeeze is to jack up premiums to the max to kill momentum (as observed during the despac squeezes)

Market making is a business that avoids taking sides over long time horizons. In this business, they need to be hedged in some way almost all the time, so what you said makes no sense.

Though, yes, if uncertainty rises, market makers will quote wider spreads, which results in huge implied vols when you try to buy options (particularly not at the money).
Post reply on HN