511–520 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point, the previous holder of the stock was the company itself. That’s called an IPO. Additionally, companies frequently issue new shares to raise money. Tesla has done this multiple times in the past few years.
Most of the activity (all of it?) on the stock market seems unrelated to IPOs. Is there any particular reason stocks must be transferable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you under the impression GME wouldn't crash right alongside the market? Well ... yeah. Today it hasn't.
We all know why it hasn't. Do you really believe it will last forever? or even 6 months from now? People are trying to make money. Once the momentum slows down the big sell off will start and nobody would be able to stop it. Not DFV or even the biggest troll of all, mr. Elon Musk.
I do believe it will last at least one more week, though, yeah. And I'm putting money where my mouth is.
The best part in all of this is that you're free to short it if you disagree. See where that leads you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's got nothing to do with Robinhood. If a hedge decides to cover the short so they don't have to admit defeat and go bankrupt, then the entire market goes down because they'll end up selling thousands of unrelated shares for their cover.
You've fallen victim to some common misinformation that's spreading. Multiple hedge funds have already been able to cover their shorts, and there's not much reason to believe this will change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make money on trades and then spend it on food, it certainly does seem like some kind of magic trick to me. Whatever money you earned must have been lost by someone else. Or does the amount of money increase when stocks go up? Whatever the confusion is, I have it too.
I make something and sell it to you for $5. Tomorrow, you sell it to a third person for $10. Who lost money here?
You and the third person both lost money in some unknown combination. Either you're selling for a lower price, or 3rd is buying for a higher price, or probably both.
In the metaphor, this is aggregated across bazillions of transactions, and ignores benefits like supply and demand are generally evened out over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The overall market is stressed, things are getting weird and I would not be surprised if this is the beginning of another stock market crash. GME short interest was still greater 100% of shares outstanding as of 1pm 1/29 (S3 Shortsight numbers). If forced to cover, short holders will have to liquidate other assets. Could those liquidations force more liquidations in a positive feedback loop? Hopefully no, but certa…
There is nothing special about being short more than 100%, they short shares that are borrowed multiple times. But it also means the “long” interest is more than 200%. Even if you own equivalent of 100% of float there are still other shares that can be used to cover. The only issue starts if someone has lent out more than 100% of float and tries to simultaneously recall all of them.
The actual value was 113% from S3, but other sources had different values so I rounded down. While there is nothing magic about 113% or 100% or any other number, it is a measure of the difficulty of covering the entirety of the short interest: Higher numbers are more likely to result in a short squeeze, since those covering will likely have a higher bid to attract the attention of longs.
I'm honestly confused by the press around this event. I get it, /DFV started a short squeeze and got rich, that is great for him. I don't support naked shorting, it should probably be illegal (if it is not already) and it looks that was part of the reason this happened. Everyone has been suspecting for a while (especially here) that a lot of volatility in stocks like TSLA etc was due to Robinhood. As of 5:33 EST, I'm…
> Why is this such a big deal? You don't see it? You don't see any reason why this is a big deal? When was the last time brokers shut down one direction of trading on stocks? --- EDIT: FWIW, you can't shut down one direction of trading, there's a buy for every sell, but you can skew who get to do the buy and the sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you elaborate on this? This reads as essentially false to my understanding. No, it's not false AFAIK :) By 'endpoint' I mean what an address on those networks actually *addresses*. Both a Tor-address (a .onion hostname, or a regular web address if you use Tor to access one), and an I2P-address, are essentially similar to an IP-address in terms of being the address of a *machine*. They are anonymized, but the da…
The properties of Freenet you describe are extremely intriguing. However, I'm asking about your description of Tor and I2P >However as they're both communication networks they do not provide censorship-resistance. The endpoints you're connecting to are central servers and can be taken down. This is technically incoherent, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. As far as I'm aware, at no point does your TCP traffic fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is as I understood it. There is a lot of misinformation from folks who believe to understand the entire situation from all players' perspective. I am not able to comprehend the situation well enough. If anyone has seen a good non-biased write up on what has happened so far and what may happen, I would love to see it.
I feel that I learnt something from this twitter thread. https://twitter.com/KralcTrebor/status/1354952686165225478
Here’s the part that makes no sense to me: why can’t Robinhood use customer funds for their deposit? Imagine a degenerate case: all but one client make no trades at all. One client has $100k deposited and buys $100k worth of GME. Prior to settlement, GME drops by 50%. That client is (effectively) out the entire $100k, and they are owed $50k worth of GME. Robinhood needs to post somewhere between $50k and $100k of collateral to the clearinghouse.
This all seems entirely reasonable with one giant of exception: apparently Robinhood may not draw on the client’s deposit for this. Never mind that, at settlement, the client will be debited the entire $100k. Somehow Robinhood is expected to temporarily come up with an additional $50k-$100k for a two day period. This seems bizarre to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which market? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_retail_compa...
Check the operational format column. Notice that amazon, being number 4 overall, is literally the only one on that list that says "e-commerce". The greatest generation is dying off and the boomers are retiring. If no one seriously challenges amazon, there is going to be a lot of growth in e-commerce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the parent is talking about an ideal situation in which saving accounts do actually pay off a nice interest that beats the inflation and sprinkle some extra profit on top. Not a lot but it is risk free. Isn’t the idea that banks make the money flow by circulating it around a good one? A saver who doesn’t need it now can park it in a bank and when their time to retire comes they get their actualized money plus…
The only way a bank could afford to pay enough interest on a savings account to meet inflation would be to... wait for it... invest that money in something that would beat the inflation rate. We've just re-invented the stock market.
We don’t need the stock market.