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

241–250 of 250 posts

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

#241

Post by lutzwutz »

jstanley wrote: post #127
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 the whole thing and loved it. Great work. I wish I could watch the film!

Thanks! So are we :)

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

#242

Post by ggambetta »

eternalban wrote: post #70
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…

Read it, it's good. (Typo page 45 r/the approach/they approach). "not bad for a day's work" Interesting definition of work. I see Kyle's future having morphed into Ivanov..

Thanks! Fixed the typo for next drafts.

Who knows, maybe this is the origin story of Kyle as a hedge fund supervillain? :)

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

#243

Post by WJW »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #204
nradov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stock market can't cut a company short. Even if the stock price goes to $0, the company still exists with all of it's assets, contracts, and employees. The stock price only matters if they do a secondary offering, and to a lesser extent for equity based employee compensation.

I mean look at Citigroup. C was $564.10 at the end of 2006. By early 2009 it was $10.20 - that's about a 98.2% reduction in the stock price. That's a much larger destruction of capital than GME ever was.

Do you imply that it was excessive short selling between 2006 and 2009 that lowered the price of Citigroup? It seems much more likely that the 2008 financial crisis had a lot to do with it and that Citigroup (which famously only escaped bankruptcy due to a government bailout) indeed lost 98.2% of its equity value.

So it wasn't the stock price falling that brought the company low, it was the company failing that brought the stock price low.

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

#244

Post by kbart »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #219
knodi wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to gambling.

I very very rarely go for a risky investment. I am what is referred to as a grinder. I am averaging about 16% YTY return for the last 20 years (and much better than that the last 5, obviously). The trick... undervalued or momentum stocks that suddenly have big interest. Spot the trend and go with it (swimming in the big fishes wake). It's OK to exit AFTER the movement breaks... never be greedy. Never cry about the pr…

What tools do you use for that? I tried similiar strategy just by looking at the publicly available tools (e.g. MartketWatch), but it seemed I'm always too late, so I resorted to mid-long term investments to the companies I believe.

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

#245

Post by reducesuffering »

wolverine876 wrote: post #81

How do we recognize such madness in the future, before we get caught up in it? After it's metastasized?

Easy. If it's a unanimous echo chamber on Reddit, (see QAnon and WSB/GME), it's likely wrong and I'd bet on the opposite.

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

#246

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

WJW wrote: post #243
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean look at Citigroup. C was $564.10 at the end of 2006. By early 2009 it was $10.20 - that's about a 98.2% reduction in the stock price. That's a much larger destruction of capital than GME ever was.

Do you imply that it was excessive short selling between 2006 and 2009 that lowered the price of Citigroup? It seems much more likely that the 2008 financial crisis had a lot to do with it and that Citigroup (which famously only escaped bankruptcy due to a government bailout) indeed lost 98.2% of its equity value. So it wasn't the stock price falling that brought the company low, it was the company failing that broug…

No; not suggesting this has to with excessive short selling. I’m just supplying a data point to support the point that a large decrease in stock price needn’t have a material affect on the ability of a firm to operate.

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

#247

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

kbart wrote: post #244
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very very rarely go for a risky investment. I am what is referred to as a grinder. I am averaging about 16% YTY return for the last 20 years (and much better than that the last 5, obviously). The trick... undervalued or momentum stocks that suddenly have big interest. Spot the trend and go with it (swimming in the big fishes wake). It's OK to exit AFTER the movement breaks... never be greedy. Never cry about the pr…

What tools do you use for that? I tried similiar strategy just by looking at the publicly available tools (e.g. MartketWatch), but it seemed I'm always too late, so I resorted to mid-long term investments to the companies I believe.

https://unusualwhales.com/ and just following trending on specific targets. Enormous amounts of reading. Basically, if the popular media is hyping something, I go contrarian or least start thinking that way. There's nothing wrong with coming in late or leaving late on something. Go into investing with a realistic set of expectations and goals and you'll do fine. Occasionally, you'll screw up (I missed an options spread that someone else nailed me on and lost $7k in potential profits just a couple months ago).

The best thing is just to go with indexes and spread buys over time (daily if you can) and sell only when you want money to spend, not because you're scared of the market.

No one beats the market... I just try to find the flow and go with it.

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

#248

Post by lern_too_spel »

conorcleary wrote: post #193
lern_too_spel wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they are serious. They really believe their "DD" about "authentic shares" and "NFT dividends."

Well yeah, find something that disproves it.

That "DD" has been debunked numerous times, and I won't waste my time rehashing it. Suffice it to say that Carl Icahn is no stranger to burning short sellers by putting money in, loudly announcing it, and helping his investment through the legal system; and his absence from GME shows just how believable he thinks that DD is.

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

#249

Post by raxxorrax »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #204
nradov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stock market can't cut a company short. Even if the stock price goes to $0, the company still exists with all of it's assets, contracts, and employees. The stock price only matters if they do a secondary offering, and to a lesser extent for equity based employee compensation.

I mean look at Citigroup. C was $564.10 at the end of 2006. By early 2009 it was $10.20 - that's about a 98.2% reduction in the stock price. That's a much larger destruction of capital than GME ever was.

Didn't they make a 1 for 10 split in between? Still a reduction of course.

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

#250

Post by Dork1234 »

BYazfVCcq wrote: post #46
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...

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 part…

It is kinda hard to believe the drop in Short Interest with corresponding volume on those days. Something doesn't add up, but I don't know what.
Post reply on HN