Anyone seeing this list as a list of investment opportunities should think twice. This is the list of companies that Big Money is betting heavily against. In 99% of cases you don't want to take the other side of the bet against these big funds. They could be right and the company is actually a loser, or they could just have way more money than you and the market will never reflect anything but their perspective. GME…
How about just joining them? shorting all those stocks (except the meme stocks)...
It doesn't need to go to infinity. GameStop just needs to get to parity with totality of the collective assets of every short seller. Then to make good on their debt, those entities will be fully liquidated. They took on unbounded risk and have no leverage if all of the stockholders refuse to sell for anything less. The stock is less a company than a contract that can be purchased that says the other party has to pay…
There is a lot of assumptions there. You're assuming the short sellers must cover their shorts at the highest possible price instead of, you know, waiting a day or two. You're also assuming that GameStop doesn't issue any new stock which is already not the case for AMC.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just asserting that it's a rational strategy that has a possibility of succeeding.
Can the short sellers stay solvent long enough to wait for the price to drop? Short squeezes can last for weeks. The answer is already no, at least some of them cannot, e.g. Melvin Capital
I know there are a lot of Wall st guys here. Can someone explain what's really going to happen here in regards to the short squeeze? Is it really so simple? How will the shorts be able to cover? Also, is this page correct in saying that GameStop is the only stock on all listed US markets that's shorted over 100%?
Bankruptcy is certainly an option.
But in this case I imagine they have to spend all their assets on buying stock, even if they cant buy enough to get back to even, right?
I don't know anyone who claimed that reusing rockets was physically impossible. The Space Shuttle SRBs were reusable. To paraphrase you, "here we were then."
IIRC the boosters were not reusable.
You don't recall correctly.
"At an altitude of approximately 45 km (24 nautical miles), the boosters separate from the orbiter/external tank, descend on parachutes, and land in the Atlantic Ocean. ... They are recovered by ships, returned to land, and refurbished for reuse."
Is it not also possible that the shorting itself influences the direction of the stock/performance of the company? I'm not sure you can make a statement like you're making. There, to me, is not a direct cause/effect relationship here.
It influences the direction of the stock price perhaps, but why the fundamentals?
Companies can and do leverage the capital provided by their stock value, so just there would be an influence (less value = less capital = less ability to make market moves), but beyond that, I think, as others had mentioned, it could have an outsize negative psychological affect on the workforce. Plus, it could cause a feedback loop of sorts, as other investors might look at the short and jump in on the chance that someone knows something they don't, causing it to further decline, causing a multiplication on the above issues.
Give it a few years. I'm still skeptical that Tesla should be worth more than all the other auto companies combined.
Regardless, it should definitely be worth more than the $8 per share that it was in 2013, or the $45 per share that it was in 2014. Short sellers were clamoring very loudly then too. Lots of people preached "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". Eventually, of course, if a security keeps only going up, this mantra will become true. The point is that sometimes, a bet that seems like a sure…
Why should it be worth $8 a share? Do you really want GameStop in your retirement portfolio? It's pretty clear to me that it will, and should, be worth $0 eventually.