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

u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 554 posts

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#471

Post by [deleted] »

billylindeman wrote: post #98
ggggtez wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he's still in doesn't mean that it's actually worth $300 on the fundamentals. I could definitely see the argument that $20 was undervalued, but it's plain to see that the short-squeeze is now part of the calculation of value. There is no way that GameStop has an actual fundamental value of $300 per share. That price is clearly inflated, and in a few weeks will decrease, probably to somewhere above $20, b…

Any stock that does not pay dividends _has no fundamentals_. It's just supply / demand.

[deleted]

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#472

Post by jokoon »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #24
devops000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope one day we will see an IPFS link

Why do people constantly have to re-invent the wheel? :( Freenet [0] has been providing censorship-resistant, anonymous, decentralized hosting for 20 years - and is still in active development! You could upload it to Freenet without any server whatsoever and it would stay online for as long as it is popular, even if your machine goes offline. And you'd be anonymous while doing so! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr…

A p2p fille sharing system is not a wheel. I found that freenet was a little complex. Ipfs is quite simple and modern. Doesn't freenet use Java?

Anyway, software doesn't have well respected ISO standards and 20 years is an eternity in the age of the internet. So I don't see a problem with ipfs. Also, ipfs looks like it's more flexible and reusable.

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#473

Post by jbverschoor »

adolph wrote: post #394
jbverschoor wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nobody sells, any seller can charge ANY price they want. 1 trillion per share. When more is shorted than exists, you’re in a let good place to know that there’s no such thing as the last biggest fool.

If nobody buys, does the trillion dollar seller make a sound?

If they sold a call option which is exercised, they’d HAVE to buy

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#474

Post by jbverschoor »

ericd wrote: post #462
jjeaff wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if insolvency makes a sound. If the shorts don't have the trillion dollars to buy that stock to pay back the debt by the deadline then they are sol.

What deadline exists for shorts, assuming these aren't puts?

Today was the monthly option expiration day.

But of course not all options expire at the same time

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#475

Post by runarberg »

ericd wrote: post #466
runarberg wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idk. I simply don’t like the fact that people are gambling with my workplace. And I especially don’t like it when shareholders pocket parts of the profit that I made them without bringing anything of value to the company. I don’t despise hedge funds any more then I despise the stock market as a whole. We don’t need it. In fact I would argue that the existence of the stock market is actively harmful. I would go so far…

"And I especially don’t like it when shareholders pocket parts of the profit that I made them without bringing anything of value to the company." Are you trolling? You do realize why those shares are out there, right? Because your company needed money, and those people gave your company their money to get started, grow, hire more people, etc. Is that not bringing something of value?

IMO no. I would have preferred it if my company would have used less predatory means of getting that money, something like taking a loan or simply saving up part of the profits for any future investments.

The people that made the decision to sell the share still pay them selfs plenty of money, the shareholder’s reward is always coming from my paycheck, and I prefer it wouldn’t.

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#476

Post by pb7 »

samename wrote: post #465
pb7 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issuing shares is a move done to raise money. It would then follow that GameStop would want to get the most money possible for these shares so they would try to sell them for the highest price possible, somewhere around the current going price. I’m not 100% on whether they have to release them all at once but I’m guessing dumping multiple million shares all at once would crash the price which isn’t good for anyone in…

I’m new to this as well - how do you know how many shares that have shorted? I heard that even the number of shares shorted isn’t guaranteed to be accurate.

You can find it on many finance websites[0] but yes, the accurate numbers are only released twice a month. There are companies that specialize in estimating the short interest on a daily basis. It’s likely to be accurate enough to draw the same conclusions.

[0] https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/GME/short-interest/

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#477

Post by strogonoff »

stcredzero wrote: post #450
strogonoff wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it apply to all media?

Anyone who commands any appreciable number of eyeballs can parlay this into money and/or power. This has been true basically forever.

I’m not sure it’s about media. Media may provide a channel to carry a message to many people, but that channel can be used for good or for evil.

I think we are talking about converting influence over masses to personal gain (don’t know if GME guy did it intentionally or not, but it benefitted him), less about media (which itself may not become richer from this) and more about how some use it. Admittedly some media may be prone to facilitating these scenarios.

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#478

Post by runarberg »

pb7 wrote: post #464
runarberg wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders and investors aren’t the only means of collecting revenue for a business. Alternatives include: * Setting aside parts of the profit for future investment * Getting a loan from a bank or your local credit union * Community or owner funding Do you honestly think that if it wasn’t for investors businesses would just stop existing? In a world without venture capitalists businesses would need to stand on thei…

> Setting aside parts of the profit for future investment Companies go public without being profitable. Raising money via IPO is one step to becoming profitable. > Getting a loan from a bank or your local credit union No bank is going to loan $100M to a complicated startup with no collateral that needs capital to grow quickly and is unlikely to be able to start repaying for years. This is where VCs come in — they und…

Now I do think you are just trying to win an argument and not actually debating in good faith.

Community funding includes accelerators such as Y-combinator, wealthy philanthropists, and charities. Heck I didn’t mention it but you could crowdsource the money for all I care... Point is, alternatives exists that are less predatory then shareholders and investors.

> No bank is going to loan $100M to a complicated startup

(Since we are both just trying to win this argument) Perhaps startups that need $100M to get started, and are unable to crowdsource, loan, or community fund that amount simply should exist. Or at the very least, perhaps it should downscale to a more affordable price, earn some profits and scale up as the profits turn in. I’m not gonna cry for a hypothetical startup that failed because they couldn’t raise $100M before they even began the work.

> You can’t have a bootstrapped Google or Airbnb or Square.

So what? I see people complain about Google and AirBnB all the time on this very forum. These are massive companies that have shown predatory and monopolistic behavior time and time again. Maybe the business world would be better if we didn’t have any tech giants. And instead, smaller tech companies would have to collaborate on big scale projects. Remember that we got the CD by a collaboration.

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#479

Post by system2 »

raziel2701 wrote: post #22

On wsb u/deepfuckingvalue showed he still holds 50,000 shares and 500 deep ITM call options. He has secured a profit of $13.8 million dollars, and his remaining open position is valued at $45 million. I would caution people to not quickly fall into the "if he's still in, I'm still in" meme. He has secured a $14 million bag, regardless if the stock goes to zero he's already secured a life changing amount of money, he…

Reddit kids do not have enough money to keep doing this after this stock goes bust. Eventually they will try 1-2 more stocks and some will make them lose money then they will post their losses and blame the subreddit.

2 years ago everyone was crazy about bitcoin(even close friends, family members, coworkers). Although it is 30k now, I don't hear it from a single person.

This is another social media experiment and won't repeat this successfully in the future.

Re: u/DeepFuckingValue and the GameStop Reddit mania

#480

Post by pb7 »

runarberg wrote: post #478
pb7 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Setting aside parts of the profit for future investment Companies go public without being profitable. Raising money via IPO is one step to becoming profitable. > Getting a loan from a bank or your local credit union No bank is going to loan $100M to a complicated startup with no collateral that needs capital to grow quickly and is unlikely to be able to start repaying for years. This is where VCs come in — they und…

Now I do think you are just trying to win an argument and not actually debating in good faith. Community funding includes accelerators such as Y-combinator, wealthy philanthropists, and charities. Heck I didn’t mention it but you could crowdsource the money for all I care... Point is, alternatives exists that are less predatory then shareholders and investors. > No bank is going to loan $100M to a complicated startup…

> Now I do think you are just trying to win an argument and not actually debating in good faith.

You’re projecting.

> Y Combinator

You realize YC takes 7% of the equity and becomes a shareholder forever, right? This is exactly what you’re complaining about.

> you could crowdsource the money

If only there existed a system where anyone can fund any company at any time and then exchange hands when they wanted to fund another one... hmm...

I’m done here. You’re just trolling now.

Post reply on HN