441–450 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, an outsider can't simply declare something to be true by dint of being an outsider. You need to reason it. Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. But experts should be held to the same standard.
> Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.
A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…
1. Read Wikipedia on another field 2. Decide, based on that knowledge, that the field is “ripe for disruption” 3. Usually fail miserably if parasitic ad tech isn’t the core business model
Even politicians show more humility than these people. It’s as if typing into a computer makes them think they are omniscient high priests. Most of them even have the gall to call themselves engineers. We don’t call machinists engineers, and most programmers are digital machinists.
There’s a long history of similar occurrences that follow along a common line: whatever appears to support individual investors will be the path taken by politicians and regulatory bodies. Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is probably very little truth to…
The FOMO is palpable. There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one and only chance at a comfortable life. This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed.
Let's say instead of buying a Latte every working days at starbucks over the last five years you had invested it in tesla stocks. Or maybe for every starbucks latte you drank, you invested the same amount in ETF and in Tesla (pay 3 latte, drink one). Where would your life be? Would you still be at your 9-to-5 or would you go work for that non-profit? Or would you just be lazing around on the sofa or at the beach sipping pina-coladas?
Anyway, sometimes it takes a lot of energy to deal with the KIMO (Know I Missed Out).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FOMO is palpable. There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one and only chance at a comfortable life. This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed.
My Facebook feed is filled with people talking about this. These are friends I have know for years who have never mentioned stocks before but now are talking about "holding the line". It is FOMO for sure, but the real emotions I get from talking with people are outrage and revenge. Everyone feels like the system (economic and political) is rigged against the public. The dopamine hit from sticking it to the man is pal…
I see the idea parroted a lot that if everyone holds the line, the shorts will have to buy every outstanding share of GME stock at whatever inflated price it’s at. They won’t, though. The bubble will pop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you actually read that link that case is so extraordinarily different than the reality of what’s happening today I don’t know how you can argue this in good faith.
> I don’t know how you can argue this in good faith I'm not an expert and am rather dumb. What do you think the differences are? Differences: * One hedge fund versus a multitude of investors * Owning all the securities vs only a portion The similarities are: * Intentionally buying all the stock to cause a short squeeze * Explicitly recalling borrowed shares to cause a short squeeze To be clear, I'm not arguing that w…
The Falcone case is much more complicated because it was a single person buying the entirety of the market. Much weirder mechanics at play. Squeezes are always carried out through the self-interest of uncoordinated parties, be they retail investors or firms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell almost no professional investers beat the market, almost nobody wins the lottery. Why should I listen to lottery players or professional wall street gamers?
Almost no doctors beat terminal cancer. Im going to try this crystal healing method...
"The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly inhibit their ability to trade certain securities. In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity." This shoul…
Robinhood says that they basically couldn't fulfil the buy orders because they ran out of money, or couldn't fulfil the orders without breaking the rest of the platform. I imagine whatever the reason there's going to be lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this. I can't imagine the professional investor class is still blindly following their shorts. They're all out by now, aren't they? If the "little guys" are making money I tend to think it's coming from other little guys.
The "short" (haha) answer is that we just don't know what the funds have done during the last week. They're incentivized to mislead the public about closing their positions. But the technical reasons the gamma squeeze happened and possible short squeeze today could happen still make sense: the equity has oversubscribed short interest and a skyrocketing price.
A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…
I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is seriously wearing thin. Pretty…
The guy is disliked for taking too much credit for things, not for "having non-consensus views" - which is sort of the opposite problem.