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

WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

thinkingthrough.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 475 posts

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#341

Post by TeMPOraL »

astrea wrote: post #240
totalZero wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but Gabe Plotkin is the uber-wallstreeter. All the rich-but-average Chosen Ones who get internships because of mommy and daddy look at what guys like him accomplish and think, "someday that too can be mine." This is like that scene in 300 where Leonidas makes Xerxes bleed. The point isn't that Wall Street has fallen. It's that, for once, Wall Street is fallible.

While I enjoy the esprit de corp of this particular discussion, the recurring allusions to "David vs Goliath"-esque tales are rather cringe-inducing and really speak to the maturity level of those involved (if that wasn't already clear by their "tendies").

The image I have in my head is less LOTR defenders or David(s) vs Goliath, and more of a horde of zombies that broke through a barrier and jumped some guards, but are about to be mowed down by a well-armed group behind a barricade. This isn't going to end well for the retailers - but hell if isn't sending a message.

Also the collateral damage is going to be more interesting to follow than the financials themselves. Already Discord and RobinHood painted themselves as enemies of the people - whether this was their least bad option legally, or they were influenced by Wall Street is immaterial - it's already viewed as the latter. Couple that with other high-profile bans by social media platforms this year (and it's not even February!), and I can see a lot of regular people all across the political spectrum who feel abused by big, rich companies. I think the last time we saw this kind of energy on the Internet, it led to Scientology protests, Occupy WallStreet and the Arab Spring...

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#342

Post by meetups323 »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #278
dreamcompiler wrote: post #163

The endgame here is fascinating to me. The people who got in early will suffer least when GSE finally crashes and burns. But the poor suckers who bought it at $150 are going to be in big trouble. They're all trying to stay strong and hold long because that's the way to make the hedge funds suffer, but the smarter ones will figure out that their only chance to not lose their shirts is to be in the earliest 5% of scabs…

I bought at $350. It's all about the hodl.

I bought at 325 and sold 2/3 at 470. Now I basically can't lose money on the overall, but I'm still in it till the moon on that 1/3.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#343

Post by nabla9 »

lazide wrote: post #148
nabla9 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy stock with the purpose of pushing the price up so that other people will buy it, that’s market manipulation. What WSB crowd is doing is market manipulation. That's illegal. WSB is doing everything openly and even celebrating it. Getting mad when openly breaking the law is not rational response. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i Brokers like Robinhood are reacting because they want too keep SEC…

Not so clear cut. If you hype stock to PROFIT from it by selling before it crashes, that is market manipulation. If you hype stock because you believe it is an amazing opportunity, and you happen to diversify before it crashes - that is talking about things in public. A bunch of people hyping each other up? Also talking in public about what they like. If that moves markets? That happens. If that opportunity is a shor…

I agree, it's not clear cut. It's unlikely that SEC goes after the WSB but they could.

What happened satisfies the four part test for market manipulation. But you would have to figure out the suspects who actually match the test. Most participants are just fools.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#344

Post by boh »

bidirectional wrote: post #19

Once again, this insistence on viewing 'Wall Street' as a monolothic entity. The largest asset management firm on Earth holds over 9 million Gamestop stock, none of the big banks that received bailouts in 08 are affected by this, 99.9% of hedge funds are not affected by this, high frequency traders are probably making a bundle. Institutional money was long Gamestop before this story entered the public consciousness.…

This story is far less dramatic than the media is making it out to be. Short-sellers are a fringe group within the industry who often totally fail on trades (short selling is a pretty risky bet with an unlimited downside). This situation is definitely not monumental or new. Retail investors have been pumping stocks for the last 100 years. They contributed to the crash of 1929 and the dot com bubble, for instance. No they didn't have a subreddit to express themselves, they instead were driven by newspapers and pundits to direct their trades, but a similar premise nonetheless.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#345

Post by ridaj »

> With their heads in cloud nine, hedge funds tried to kill GameStop ($GME). They tried to squeeze it so much that it would suffocate and die. They didn't care about the people who will be out of jobs, unable to pay their bills, or even survive.

A low stock price doesn't, by itself, kill a business and put people out of jobs. Bad management kills a business, as does being in a bad business to begin with.

> Never in their wildest dreams, the hedge funds would have thought this day would come. The tables have finally turned as the hedge funds try to gulp in their last breath of air.

We're really not talking about "the hedge funds" in this case. Just a few hedge funds who, indeed, should've seen it coming. It's not like during the subprime crisis where every large financial institution had a large exposure to them. The exposure of the financial industry to GameStop is minuscule at the scale of the system. It's also not new, in the sense that sometimes hedge funds will try to squeeze one another too

> I honestly don't believe that people are going to sell their positions on $GME stocks. As I said, they are not in for the money anymore. They are fighting the good fight, and they have the potential to win this WAR.

Maybe they won't sell, but there are cases where fundamentals will catch up with the gamers. If/when the business runs out of cash and undergoes restructuring, the stockholders will be left holding pennies.

Maybe the CEO of GameStop (notice how he's been quiet?) will be like, f--- this job, I'm selling all my stock and retiring, thanks Internet

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#346

Post by rsanek »

dcolkitt wrote: post #79
mancerayder wrote: post #55

They are blocking buying, and only allowing selling GME, BB and others. How is this not evidence of a corrupted free market system? A CEO of one company can call up his connections in retail trading platform firms, CNBC, and Nasdaq and protect his profits? Why is Reddit the scandal and not that? Reddit is full of rocket emojis and YOLO jokes. But what we see here, especially with the moralizing about gambling, is an…

Robinhood is a free service. The customers don’t pay anything. If the order internalizers decide to stop paying them for their order flow, then they have to route to the exchanges. which charge fees. Trading is still ongoing at the exchanges. It’s just the free platforms, where it’s shut down. If someone wanted guaranteed access to the exchange, then they shouldn’t have used a free broker. Are you saying that Robinho…

Robinhood is not free. You are paying through PfOF. Just because you're not aware that you're paying more for your trades doesn't mean it's actually free. And, as others have pointed out, they have a version of their service which is paid and is exhibiting the same behavior.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#348

Post by castlecrasher2 »

lkramer wrote: post #109
mancerayder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying they should be sued. So, yes, I am saying that. If you buy securities you can't sell, you're pinned and that's not right, is it. I'm not sure if Robinhood traders signed up to that. Free doesn't matter.

They still allow selling, just not buying.

To me that suggests they're kowtowing to short sellers and manipulating the market.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#349

Post by monadic3 »

dcolkitt wrote: post #162
function_seven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They should be forced to provide the service they promised. It’s not my fault their business model is failing for a particular ticker on a particular day. If they can’t, then some advance notice is needed. Making this decision instantly without giving customers time to move their holdings elsewhere is not okay. That being said, I’m surprised people are still using them for day trading. They don’t have a great tr…

> They should be forced to provide the service they promised Read the TOS. This was never promised.

You can't expect a reasonable person to read the TOS. They have a reasonable expectation to get the same service as any other day, even if this conflicts with Robinhood's business model, unless Robinhood made their expected behavior abundantly clear in advance.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#350

Post by kgwgk »

hourislate wrote: post #38
waylandsmithers wrote: post #4

I don't know- there must be institutional players on the long side by now right? Either way, _eventually_ someone will be left holding the bag when the stock comes back down to earth.

From what I understand, BlackRock has a long stake. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000083423721... >BlackRock Inc. trimmed its holdings in Gamestop, Inc. (NYSE:GME) by 18.23% during the 4th quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13G/A filing with the SEC. The firm now owns 9,217,335 shares of GME, which represents 13.20% ownership.

That mostly means that BlackRock customers have a long stake. BlackRock and other asset managers own the shares because they are part of the funds and ETFs that they manage for others. They are not really theirs.
Post reply on HN