Yeah, I'm not sure how well the law or reality are prepared to deal with people who go looking for coded messages in literal children's books, and come up with increasingly elaborate backstories for events that didn't happen but will totally lead to a single share of Gamestop being worth $500,000,000.
The right or wrong person dropping their phone and accidentally tweeting a single letter will cause some of these people to go right from their usual frothing unhinged levels straight to 'plaid'.
At least as per the documentary on that side of things, it seemed that DeepFuckingValue/RoaringKitty had divested themselves ages ago.
Though given the tens of millions he was estimated to have potentially earned doing so, if he saw/suspected a major bump was about to happen, throwing a couple of tweets out and tripling whatever he tucked in there in the span of a week is pretty impressive, even if it's playing with fire. Again.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah, I'm not sure how well the law or reality are prepared to deal with people who go looking for coded messages in literal children's books, and come up with increasingly elaborate backstories for events that didn't happen but will totally lead to a single share of Gamestop being worth $500,000,000.
The right or wrong person dropping their phone and accidentally tweeting a single letter will cause some of these people to go right from their usual frothing unhinged levels straight to 'plaid'.
At least as per the documentary on that side of things, it seemed that DeepFuckingValue/RoaringKitty had divested themselves ages ago.
Though given the tens of millions he was estimated to have potentially earned doing so, if he saw/suspected a major bump was about to happen, throwing a couple of tweets out and tripling whatever he tucked in there in the span of a week is pretty impressive, even if it's playing with fire. Again.
DFV's current stake is one of the mysteries. I never saw the documentary, but the info prior was that he'd only sold a portion of what he had and still held onto a significant portion.
The stock rising in price the last few weeks was already making the financial news outlets and Gamestop's plans to get into valuable Pokemon cards was already putting it into the gaming news outlets. DFV tweeting pushed things into mainstream media outlets.
While I wouldn't expect Dan Olson to be considered an unimpeachable source, the documentary this shows up in indicates that it was believed he cashed out to something like $25-50 million, on an estimated ~$50k investment. Granted, it might not have been 100% of his holdings,
Which doesn't mean that he couldn't have been buying back in over time while things simmered for the last few years, of course. Or know people who'd really like an assist with potentially recouping some cash of their own, because that mess left bagholders aplenty.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
In a pump and dump scheme, fraudsters typically spread false or misleading information to create a buying frenzy that will “pump” up the price of a stock and then “dump” shares of the stock by selling their own shares at the inflated price. Once the fraudsters dump their shares and stop hyping the stock, the stock price typically falls and investors lose money.
False or misleading information about a company’s stock price may be spread through sources including social media, investment research websites, investment newsletters, online advertisements, email, Internet chat rooms, direct mail, newspapers, magazines, and radio. Microcap companies are particularly vulnerable to pump and dump schemes because there is often limited publicly-available information about microcap companies.
The question becomes, does posting a textless meme count as fraudulent information if you know there are crazy cultists out there who will take it as such?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The question becomes, does posting a textless meme count as fraudulent information if you know there are crazy cultists out there who will take it as such?
He already posted and talked about it in great detail in the last run up. He went before congress. He wasn't arrested or charged with anything. He didn't do anything illegal.
You'll also have to convince me anything he said was fraudulent or untrue.
It's possible he's dumb/greedy enough to flagrantly try to pump/dump this thing, but I'd say it's just as likely that he's simply capitalizing on an existing situation.
Seeing as it was going up before he tweeted, we'd need evidence that he was somehow tied to it going up before he acted publicly, would we not?
If he's desperate to end up speaking before congress again, go for it, my dude.
While I wouldn't expect Dan Olson to be considered an unimpeachable source, the documentary this shows up in indicates that it was believed he cashed out to something like $25-50 million, on an estimated ~$50k investment. Granted, it might not have been 100% of his holdings,
Which doesn't mean that he couldn't have been buying back in over time while things simmered for the last few years, of course. Or know people who'd really like an assist with potentially recouping some cash of their own, because that mess left bagholders aplenty.
Back in 2021, he did post some disclosures and even after he sold off enough to make several millions, he still held a ton of stock. Gamestop was trading extremely, extremely low and DFV was an options trader where contracts start at thousands of shares. He could of course have continued to sell shares afterwards during the various periods the stock has rallied, but he also has no real need to.
As it stands, the common Meme stocks have all gone through cycles of rallying and deflating without DFV being involved (and he was only ever involved in Gamestop). Enough people seem to be tracking when a lot of margin calls are due and short sellers have to go on buying sprees that it almost feels part of financial cycles now, just nowhere near to the degree of 2021. The genie is out of the bottle regarding being able to make money off of highly shorted stocks but also about maybe not shorting so much of a stock that there aren't enough actual shares available to cover all those shorts.
Pump and dumps (as traditionally understood) rely essentially on fraud; getting people to buy a stock/asset by providing false information. If RK provides no information in the first place it’s difficult to argue anything illegal has taken place.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah, getting up to 140% is a situation that I hope anyone trying to run that particular game knows to avoid in the future.
Or not, because as Dan says, 'Wallstreet is run by corrupt greedy assholes', so someone doing something shorted sighted out of greed or even spite isn't something we can rule out.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah, getting up to 140% is a situation that I hope anyone trying to run that particular game knows to avoid in the future.
Or not, because as Dan says, 'Wallstreet is run by corrupt greedy assholes', so someone doing something shorted sighted out of greed or even spite isn't something we can rule out.
The spite aspect is actually really interesting to me. A lot of people who got left holding the bag in 2021 after Robin Hood stopped being able to issue shares never sold. In the modern stock market where algorithms form the basis for many decisions, I'm sure there's been some accommodation for many people selling low out of panic but I don't know if they're able to account for spite holding.
Reading that this is still catching short-sellers out is weird, I guess some people just like to gamble on the rationality of, uh, finance cultists.
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited May 17
Attributing any of this movement to Roaring Kitty is kind of insane to me, but what do I know. Media acts like he is some massive figure or something and has power equal to Elon or Trump. It's wild.
He didn't? I think you're looking at the wrong columns - $210M is the current value of assets in that account, but they were purchased for $174.5M, so the net profit is $6.9M ($210M, less $174M cost of purchase, less $29M cash transfers presumably held as collateral).
Isn’t all that gain basically just taking advantage of the MOASS cultists? Like, notice a move, meme out a vague picture of being interested, sell your shares is pretty much just pulling money from their pockets.
Of course, the cultists have agency too, but this still feels very … grifty?
+9
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I'm startled that someone would think it was a good idea to short GameStop again. I'm also not startled. But I'm a little bit startled, still. You know?
I'm startled that someone would think it was a good idea to short GameStop again. I'm also not startled. But I'm a little bit startled, still. You know?
Yes, absolutely, but on the other hand, GameStop just announced their net sales dropped 30% last quarter, nearly 10% more than analysts' already dire estimates, so if this were any other company on earth of course it'd make sense to be shorting them.
Gamestock is also down 20% so far today, which doesn't count the spike to nearly $60 in aftermarket trading when DFV posted his position; he is out millions of dollars on at least the new shares purchased at $46. Between the announcement and the share dilution even somd of the typically irrational GME buyers are probably seeing the writing on the wall.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
It's worth mentioning that that loss mostly just wiped out gains from the day before, much of which happened in off hours trading (which normally is the domain of institutional investors/traders, not retail) and the stock is still up compared to a month ago. It already had been starting to go up after the company announced branching out into dealing with TCG card singles and other things nerds collect before DFV posted anything.
People are speculating that his livestream today was originally going to be be having people watch his share value make him into a billionaire (on paper anyway. Cashing out that much stock in one company can get complicated) in real time before the new shares altered that. Still, he has over $25 million in cash alone on eTrade so he's probably doing fine.
Mood in the communities is predictably mixed. Obviously anyone that bought during the highs got burned and some are crying conspiracy. Others are glad that DFV is still heavily invested and isn't pumping and dumping. And even people who are disappointed often agree that for the long term, this is a smart move on the part of GameStop: Adding cash to their war chest is certainly a good idea for a company that needs to find additional revenue streams.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
It's worth mentioning that that loss mostly just wiped out gains from the day before, much of which happened in off hours trading (which normally is the domain of institutional investors/traders, not retail) and the stock is still up compared to a month ago
The -40% is actually relative to the closing price yesterday, not the after-hours price surge yesterday. (It's -54% today relative to the after-hours peak yesterday.)
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
Because the supply increased and the demand hasn't changed, so the value per unit is lower
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
It's not. The company creates the shares and sells them at market price which simplistically means that your ownership is diluted but the value is approximately equivalent. The big question then becomes what does the company do with the cash it raised which the company will state. Investor response to the companies plan determines whether the share price rises or falls.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
The trick is that the "true" or "long term" value of a company is the sum of net present value of long term profit and current asset values. And the long term share price is the value of this divided by the number of shares.
So if the company has stock price of 40, makes new shares and sells them for 40 then the value of the company increases exactly the same as the shares. Old share price was value/shares = 40 and the new share price is value+40n/shares+n = 40.
The reason the stock price fell for GME is because a lot of people are betting on a short squeeze. So if the company itself is raising money by selling shares this reduces the probability a squeeze can work since there are now more shares in the open. That is, people actually think the company is overvalued.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
This is, in fact, the entire point of the stock market.
Companies want more money to help operations, instead of taking loans they decide to sell shares of ownership in the company.
The company gets money it thinks it needs and loses some amount of control of the company in the process.
That's what stocks are.
Burtletoy on
+2
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
lttp on this entire thread but as someone that worked at EB Games in 2003 in college, this has been a fucking Journey.
are YOU on the beer list?
+8
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
It's worth mentioning that that loss mostly just wiped out gains from the day before, much of which happened in off hours trading (which normally is the domain of institutional investors/traders, not retail) and the stock is still up compared to a month ago
The -40% is actually relative to the closing price yesterday, not the after-hours price surge yesterday. (It's -54% today relative to the after-hours peak yesterday.)
I don't disagree with anything else.
I think Steel was saying that even with all those losses from the volatility you pointed out, it's still up on the week. Basically weird increasing price action on no news, the Q1 report came out early, GME announced they're selling 75m more shares, the RK stream happened, and GME is still where it was on Monday.
From what I'm reading, GameStop wasn't supposed to release their most recent earnings report until Tuesday, but they released it early (Friday morning). The earnings report wasn't good, with revenue falling 30% year over year, and they also announced plans to issue and sell new shares of the company to raise capital, diluting the value of existing shares. As a result, the stock went down a whopping 40% today.
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
Based on the research I've done it sounds like that's exactly it, but it's okay because it's theoretically done with the knowledge and consent of the existing stockholders? They're expected to know going in that any particular company may devalue their stake at any time, and that if they don't want to happen they'll need to pool their current stakes to block it.
Posts
Doesn't that require a group of insiders that secretly agree on when to sell together and a group of outsiders that get screwed over?
There's nothing secretive being done here by tweeting that people should buy a stock.
The right or wrong person dropping their phone and accidentally tweeting a single letter will cause some of these people to go right from their usual frothing unhinged levels straight to 'plaid'.
At least as per the documentary on that side of things, it seemed that DeepFuckingValue/RoaringKitty had divested themselves ages ago.
Though given the tens of millions he was estimated to have potentially earned doing so, if he saw/suspected a major bump was about to happen, throwing a couple of tweets out and tripling whatever he tucked in there in the span of a week is pretty impressive, even if it's playing with fire. Again.
DFV's current stake is one of the mysteries. I never saw the documentary, but the info prior was that he'd only sold a portion of what he had and still held onto a significant portion.
The stock rising in price the last few weeks was already making the financial news outlets and Gamestop's plans to get into valuable Pokemon cards was already putting it into the gaming news outlets. DFV tweeting pushed things into mainstream media outlets.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Which doesn't mean that he couldn't have been buying back in over time while things simmered for the last few years, of course. Or know people who'd really like an assist with potentially recouping some cash of their own, because that mess left bagholders aplenty.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/pump-and-dump-schemes
He already posted and talked about it in great detail in the last run up. He went before congress. He wasn't arrested or charged with anything. He didn't do anything illegal.
You'll also have to convince me anything he said was fraudulent or untrue.
Seeing as it was going up before he tweeted, we'd need evidence that he was somehow tied to it going up before he acted publicly, would we not?
If he's desperate to end up speaking before congress again, go for it, my dude.
Keith's section starts around 1:04:25 for those that just want to see it for themselves.
Back in 2021, he did post some disclosures and even after he sold off enough to make several millions, he still held a ton of stock. Gamestop was trading extremely, extremely low and DFV was an options trader where contracts start at thousands of shares. He could of course have continued to sell shares afterwards during the various periods the stock has rallied, but he also has no real need to.
As it stands, the common Meme stocks have all gone through cycles of rallying and deflating without DFV being involved (and he was only ever involved in Gamestop). Enough people seem to be tracking when a lot of margin calls are due and short sellers have to go on buying sprees that it almost feels part of financial cycles now, just nowhere near to the degree of 2021. The genie is out of the bottle regarding being able to make money off of highly shorted stocks but also about maybe not shorting so much of a stock that there aren't enough actual shares available to cover all those shorts.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Or not, because as Dan says, 'Wallstreet is run by corrupt greedy assholes', so someone doing something shorted sighted out of greed or even spite isn't something we can rule out.
The spite aspect is actually really interesting to me. A lot of people who got left holding the bag in 2021 after Robin Hood stopped being able to issue shares never sold. In the modern stock market where algorithms form the basis for many decisions, I'm sure there's been some accommodation for many people selling low out of panic but I don't know if they're able to account for spite holding.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Dude is just memeing through it.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Say what you will, turning 50k into 210m has to be some kind of record.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Of course, the cultists have agency too, but this still feels very … grifty?
Tycho -
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Yes, absolutely, but on the other hand, GameStop just announced their net sales dropped 30% last quarter, nearly 10% more than analysts' already dire estimates, so if this were any other company on earth of course it'd make sense to be shorting them.
It's worth mentioning that that loss mostly just wiped out gains from the day before, much of which happened in off hours trading (which normally is the domain of institutional investors/traders, not retail) and the stock is still up compared to a month ago. It already had been starting to go up after the company announced branching out into dealing with TCG card singles and other things nerds collect before DFV posted anything.
People are speculating that his livestream today was originally going to be be having people watch his share value make him into a billionaire (on paper anyway. Cashing out that much stock in one company can get complicated) in real time before the new shares altered that. Still, he has over $25 million in cash alone on eTrade so he's probably doing fine.
Mood in the communities is predictably mixed. Obviously anyone that bought during the highs got burned and some are crying conspiracy. Others are glad that DFV is still heavily invested and isn't pumping and dumping. And even people who are disappointed often agree that for the long term, this is a smart move on the part of GameStop: Adding cash to their war chest is certainly a good idea for a company that needs to find additional revenue streams.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Can someone explain why that's the case? Don't the ownership ratio and dividends for each individual share remain the same regardless of how much stock is released? Is this just another case of the financial system being somehow controlled by the sort of people who are too dumb to understand the difference between a stock and a commodity?
The -40% is actually relative to the closing price yesterday, not the after-hours price surge yesterday. (It's -54% today relative to the after-hours peak yesterday.)
I don't disagree with anything else.
Because the supply increased and the demand hasn't changed, so the value per unit is lower
No this is the company makes up new shares and sells them. Current owners see their fractional ownership get reduced
You're thinking splitting
How does that work? Because that sounds like it's just transferring wealth from the stockholders to the company.
It's not. The company creates the shares and sells them at market price which simplistically means that your ownership is diluted but the value is approximately equivalent. The big question then becomes what does the company do with the cash it raised which the company will state. Investor response to the companies plan determines whether the share price rises or falls.
The trick is that the "true" or "long term" value of a company is the sum of net present value of long term profit and current asset values. And the long term share price is the value of this divided by the number of shares.
So if the company has stock price of 40, makes new shares and sells them for 40 then the value of the company increases exactly the same as the shares. Old share price was value/shares = 40 and the new share price is value+40n/shares+n = 40.
The reason the stock price fell for GME is because a lot of people are betting on a short squeeze. So if the company itself is raising money by selling shares this reduces the probability a squeeze can work since there are now more shares in the open. That is, people actually think the company is overvalued.
This is, in fact, the entire point of the stock market.
Companies want more money to help operations, instead of taking loans they decide to sell shares of ownership in the company.
The company gets money it thinks it needs and loses some amount of control of the company in the process.
That's what stocks are.
I think Steel was saying that even with all those losses from the volatility you pointed out, it's still up on the week. Basically weird increasing price action on no news, the Q1 report came out early, GME announced they're selling 75m more shares, the RK stream happened, and GME is still where it was on Monday.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Based on the research I've done it sounds like that's exactly it, but it's okay because it's theoretically done with the knowledge and consent of the existing stockholders? They're expected to know going in that any particular company may devalue their stake at any time, and that if they don't want to happen they'll need to pool their current stakes to block it.