The legal resolution to this probably won't be to crack down on hedge funds, it'll be to crack down on people selling excessive shorts.
I don't even think it will need a legal resolution. Now the whole world will be on the lookout for potential short squeezes.
The underlying cause of all of this is that Andrew Left/Citron Research and whoever their hedge fund clients were went all in on shorting GameStop to a level that never made any sense. If you leave a big plate of tendies out on your back porch, you shouldn't be surprised when the crows and raccoons swarm into your yard to eat them.
And if Andrew Left figured out that the ride was over and gave up his reporting on shorts, I'm sure everyone else has too.
Dark_Side on
+1
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
After reading some Twitter threads by the folks most invested in this whole mess, it's impressive the degree to which they hate rich people and want them to die.
I'd say it almost matches how much they hate poor people and minorities and want them to die, but I'm not sure.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
RobinHood also did not provide that explanation when their CEO was live last night, and we have multiple random billionaires in interviews (who, granted, may not know anything specific) more or less openly stating that the game should be rigged in favor of hedge funds and closing trades is good because it prevents losses (implied: for shorts).It is possible Robinhood was also cash poor, but at best that appears to be a happy justification for stopping trading.
I mean, I don't understand the stock market, but the first thing he says to explain his actions is that the company is under a lot of requirements and didn't have enough cash flow to cover his phrase.
It's not that he didn't bring up this issue last night. The problem is that people already wrote off his explaination from last as bull shit.
I listened to the entire clip, assuming I had missed something about this guy. But no, he never says anything about not having the cash to do it. In fact when first asked the question, he spends an entire minute dropping a soundbite about how great Robinhood is without answering the question. He's asked the question five times and the times he does finally give an answer mumbles "regulatory requirements", not that they didn't have the cashflow to cover.
Just under two minutes in, he says there are financial requirements have to put up money for clearing houses and the amount of money they put up has to deal with volatility.
Yes, he says that there are requirements. He doesn't then say "we didn't have the ability to meet those requirements", he says they had to "prudently manage" the risks. That implies he had a choice, that he could have complied with the regulatory requirements, but didn't out of prudence. If it's true that they needed more capital before they could allow the trades, then he wasn't "prudently managing the risks", he was just doing the only thing he could do.
I don't really understand this hair splitting. What do you think "we have to put up money at clearinghouses, the amount we have to put up depends on market volatility" and "to prudential manage the risk and deposit requirements" means that is distinct from that?
If I cancel Netflix because I have to choose between Queen's Gambit and shelter, I am both "prudentially managing" my responsibilities and "can't afford" to keep Netflix. If they chose to restrict these particular trades because it would have made his platform fail to continue to do so, that's the same thing.
Dude, if I ask you, "so why don't you watch Netflix anymore?" and your response it to spend an entire minute talking about how you wanted to be prudent about the entertainment material that enters your house, both to protect yourself and any visitors, I'm not going to think "oh he can't afford it", I'm a) going to wonder what the fuck you're talking about and b) maybe think that you find some of the programing on Netflix immoral or something? It's a deliberate non-answer.
A real answer is "couldn't afford it." He tap dances for 5 minutes not saying that.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that it was a money problem and he was too embarrassed to say it. I think he's an idiot because it makes him look like he has something worse to hide when he can get out of any imagined impropriety just by stating the truth. But don't tell me a 5 minute dog and pony show is him clearly stating what the problem was, because it fucking isn't that.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
RobinHood also did not provide that explanation when their CEO was live last night, and we have multiple random billionaires in interviews (who, granted, may not know anything specific) more or less openly stating that the game should be rigged in favor of hedge funds and closing trades is good because it prevents losses (implied: for shorts).It is possible Robinhood was also cash poor, but at best that appears to be a happy justification for stopping trading.
I mean, I don't understand the stock market, but the first thing he says to explain his actions is that the company is under a lot of requirements and didn't have enough cash flow to cover his phrase.
It's not that he didn't bring up this issue last night. The problem is that people already wrote off his explaination from last as bull shit.
I listened to the entire clip, assuming I had missed something about this guy. But no, he never says anything about not having the cash to do it. In fact when first asked the question, he spends an entire minute dropping a soundbite about how great Robinhood is without answering the question. He's asked the question five times and the times he does finally give an answer mumbles "regulatory requirements", not that they didn't have the cashflow to cover.
Just under two minutes in, he says there are financial requirements have to put up money for clearing houses and the amount of money they put up has to deal with volatility.
Yes, he says that there are requirements. He doesn't then say "we didn't have the ability to meet those requirements", he says they had to "prudently manage" the risks. That implies he had a choice, that he could have complied with the regulatory requirements, but didn't out of prudence. If it's true that they needed more capital before they could allow the trades, then he wasn't "prudently managing the risks", he was just doing the only thing he could do.
If someone tells me that it wouldn't be financially prudent to own a Lamborghini due to the massive cost, I'm not going to assume that means he could easily afford one but simply chooses not to.
I'm also not going to a accuse him if being a liar or intentionally misleading me if I find out the next day he only earns $50,000 a year.
Schrodinger on
0
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
RobinHood also did not provide that explanation when their CEO was live last night, and we have multiple random billionaires in interviews (who, granted, may not know anything specific) more or less openly stating that the game should be rigged in favor of hedge funds and closing trades is good because it prevents losses (implied: for shorts).It is possible Robinhood was also cash poor, but at best that appears to be a happy justification for stopping trading.
I mean, I don't understand the stock market, but the first thing he says to explain his actions is that the company is under a lot of requirements and didn't have enough cash flow to cover his phrase.
It's not that he didn't bring up this issue last night. The problem is that people already wrote off his explaination from last as bull shit.
I listened to the entire clip, assuming I had missed something about this guy. But no, he never says anything about not having the cash to do it. In fact when first asked the question, he spends an entire minute dropping a soundbite about how great Robinhood is without answering the question. He's asked the question five times and the times he does finally give an answer mumbles "regulatory requirements", not that they didn't have the cashflow to cover.
Just under two minutes in, he says there are financial requirements have to put up money for clearing houses and the amount of money they put up has to deal with volatility.
Yes, he says that there are requirements. He doesn't then say "we didn't have the ability to meet those requirements", he says they had to "prudently manage" the risks. That implies he had a choice, that he could have complied with the regulatory requirements, but didn't out of prudence. If it's true that they needed more capital before they could allow the trades, then he wasn't "prudently managing the risks", he was just doing the only thing he could do.
If someone tells me that it wouldn't be financially prudent to own a Lamborghini due to the massive cost, I'm not going to assume that means he could easily afford one but simply chooses not to.
I'm also not going to a accuse him if being a liar or intentionally misleading me if I find out the next day he only earns $50,000 a year.
If I ask one of my customers why they aren't paying me and the answer is "I can't afford it" my answer is an extremely direct, very slightly more polite, "Fuck you, pay me." Which is what's actually going on.
But they didn’t say that. They said they had to protect their clients. Only when pressed did they say “regulation” and that was a dodge because they said
“Regulation has caused us to need to expand our credit line”.
Not “regulation has caused us to restrict trading in GME”.
RobinHood also did not provide that explanation when their CEO was live last night, and we have multiple random billionaires in interviews (who, granted, may not know anything specific) more or less openly stating that the game should be rigged in favor of hedge funds and closing trades is good because it prevents losses (implied: for shorts).It is possible Robinhood was also cash poor, but at best that appears to be a happy justification for stopping trading.
I mean, I don't understand the stock market, but the first thing he says to explain his actions is that the company is under a lot of requirements and didn't have enough cash flow to cover his phrase.
It's not that he didn't bring up this issue last night. The problem is that people already wrote off his explaination from last as bull shit.
I listened to the entire clip, assuming I had missed something about this guy. But no, he never says anything about not having the cash to do it. In fact when first asked the question, he spends an entire minute dropping a soundbite about how great Robinhood is without answering the question. He's asked the question five times and the times he does finally give an answer mumbles "regulatory requirements", not that they didn't have the cashflow to cover.
Just under two minutes in, he says there are financial requirements have to put up money for clearing houses and the amount of money they put up has to deal with volatility.
Yes, he says that there are requirements. He doesn't then say "we didn't have the ability to meet those requirements", he says they had to "prudently manage" the risks. That implies he had a choice, that he could have complied with the regulatory requirements, but didn't out of prudence. If it's true that they needed more capital before they could allow the trades, then he wasn't "prudently managing the risks", he was just doing the only thing he could do.
I don't really understand this hair splitting. What do you think "we have to put up money at clearinghouses, the amount we have to put up depends on market volatility" and "to prudential manage the risk and deposit requirements" means that is distinct from that?
If I cancel Netflix because I have to choose between Queen's Gambit and shelter, I am both "prudentially managing" my responsibilities and "can't afford" to keep Netflix. If they chose to restrict these particular trades because it would have made his platform fail to continue to do so, that's the same thing.
Dude, if I ask you, "so why don't you watch Netflix anymore?" and your response it to spend an entire minute talking about how you wanted to be prudent about the entertainment material that enters your house, both to protect yourself and any visitors, I'm not going to think "oh he can't afford it", I'm a) going to wonder what the fuck you're talking about and b) maybe think that you find some of the programing on Netflix immoral or something? It's a deliberate non-answer.
A real answer is "couldn't afford it." He tap dances for 5 minutes not saying that.
It might shock you to learn that lots of people in the real world don't like to admit to being broke, and so they dance around this in order to save face.
There are parents earning minimum wage who don't like to admit to their children that they don't have enough money to buy things. A guy running a multi billion dollar company would be even more reluctant to admit that, because he's not used to being in that position.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that it was a money problem and he was too embarrassed to say it. I think he's an idiot because it makes him look like he has something worse to hide when he can get out of any imagined impropriety just by stating the truth. But don't tell me a 5 minute dog and pony show is him clearly stating what the problem was, because it fucking isn't that.
I know next to nothing about how these markets work, and when I heard his explanation my immediate thought was, "oh, so they just ran out of money?"
Now, maybe I'm better at reading between the lines on this subject than most people, but I seriously doubt it. If I could understand what he was hinting at, then he wasn't really hiding it.
RobinHood also did not provide that explanation when their CEO was live last night, and we have multiple random billionaires in interviews (who, granted, may not know anything specific) more or less openly stating that the game should be rigged in favor of hedge funds and closing trades is good because it prevents losses (implied: for shorts).It is possible Robinhood was also cash poor, but at best that appears to be a happy justification for stopping trading.
I mean, I don't understand the stock market, but the first thing he says to explain his actions is that the company is under a lot of requirements and didn't have enough cash flow to cover his phrase.
It's not that he didn't bring up this issue last night. The problem is that people already wrote off his explaination from last as bull shit.
I listened to the entire clip, assuming I had missed something about this guy. But no, he never says anything about not having the cash to do it. In fact when first asked the question, he spends an entire minute dropping a soundbite about how great Robinhood is without answering the question. He's asked the question five times and the times he does finally give an answer mumbles "regulatory requirements", not that they didn't have the cashflow to cover.
Just under two minutes in, he says there are financial requirements have to put up money for clearing houses and the amount of money they put up has to deal with volatility.
Yes, he says that there are requirements. He doesn't then say "we didn't have the ability to meet those requirements", he says they had to "prudently manage" the risks. That implies he had a choice, that he could have complied with the regulatory requirements, but didn't out of prudence. If it's true that they needed more capital before they could allow the trades, then he wasn't "prudently managing the risks", he was just doing the only thing he could do.
I don't really understand this hair splitting. What do you think "we have to put up money at clearinghouses, the amount we have to put up depends on market volatility" and "to prudential manage the risk and deposit requirements" means that is distinct from that?
If I cancel Netflix because I have to choose between Queen's Gambit and shelter, I am both "prudentially managing" my responsibilities and "can't afford" to keep Netflix. If they chose to restrict these particular trades because it would have made his platform fail to continue to do so, that's the same thing.
Dude, if I ask you, "so why don't you watch Netflix anymore?" and your response it to spend an entire minute talking about how you wanted to be prudent about the entertainment material that enters your house, both to protect yourself and any visitors, I'm not going to think "oh he can't afford it", I'm a) going to wonder what the fuck you're talking about and b) maybe think that you find some of the programing on Netflix immoral or something? It's a deliberate non-answer.
A real answer is "couldn't afford it." He tap dances for 5 minutes not saying that.
It might shock you to learn that lots of people in the real world don't like to admit to being broke, and so they dance around this in order to save face.
There are parents earning minimum wage who don't like to admit to their children that they don't have enough money to buy things. A guy running a multi billion dollar company would be even more reluctant to admit that, because he's not used to being in that position.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that it was a money problem and he was too embarrassed to say it. I think he's an idiot because it makes him look like he has something worse to hide when he can get out of any imagined impropriety just by stating the truth. But don't tell me a 5 minute dog and pony show is him clearly stating what the problem was, because it fucking isn't that.
I know next to nothing about how these markets work, and when I heard his explanation my immediate thought was, "oh, so they just ran out of money?"
Now, maybe I'm better at reading between the lines on this subject than most people, but I seriously doubt it. If I could understand what he was hinting at, then he wasn't really hiding it.
Sorry, but "you understood what he [supposedly] meant" != "he told it clearly"
But they didn’t say that. They said they had to protect their clients. Only when pressed did they say “regulation” and that was a dodge because they said
“Regulation has caused us to need to expand our credit line”.
Not “regulation has caused us to restrict trading in GME”.
If I explain that I had to give up my car because I lost my job, that doesn't mean that my boss pointed a gun to my head and forced me to sell my car when he fired me. Nor does it mean that it would literally be impossible for me to hold onto my car if I was willing to sacrifice something else, like rent and food.
trying to analogize a CEO's verbal gymnastics to someone struggling with poverty is something you can do, but I'm not entirely sure I understand why you'd want to
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited January 2021
The narrative about how billionaire investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
But the stock market is not a computer game. The system has not broken. One player is about to lose money and people will be mad if that does not happen because the player has been a shit since forever
The players found an exploit in the system that uses up resources, and so many players were using that exploit that the system temporarily ran out of resources to support it, and then had to place limit to how frequently this was allowed to occur.
In the real world, resource limitations even more restrictive.
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
trying to analogize a CEO's verbal gymnastics to someone struggling with poverty is something you can do, but I'm not entirely sure I understand why you'd want to
I mean, the alternative is that you can choose to be intentionally obtuse. Being a CEO doesn't mean your resources are literally without limit with no breaking point.
I mean, wasn't that the entire point of this exercise? To bring rich people to their breaking point where they run out of money? Why is it impossible to believe that the middle man reached his breaking point before the original targets did?
I'm sure you're one of the people who walked away from the classic aesop fable thinking "oh, so the fox could have easily grabbed those grapes when he wanted to. Why else would he say that they were sour?"
But the stock market is not a computer game. The system has not broken. One player is about to lose money and people will be mad if that does not happen because the player has been a shit since forever
The players found an exploit in the system that uses up resources, and so many players were using that exploit that the system temporarily ran out of resources to support it, and then had to place limit to how frequently this was allowed to occur.
In the real world, resource limitations even more restrictive.
The narrative about how billionaire investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
"these people apparently didn't have enough money to keep going" != "these people are good and cool."
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
I get confused by the term bourgeois because the meaning I understood from it is "the middle class", which is basically me, and so I don't equate it with billionaires.
But I guess in marxism the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production? Which definitely isn't me and is billionaires.
Anyway, being a billionaire is a moral failing, if we could do a poll on it I think more than 50% of PA members would agree with that statement and probably much higher than 50% of the people posting in this particular thread would agree with it.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
We'll get em
+19
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't think we need any argument via analogy for a complex financial transaction that most of us were not familiar with 7 days ago
+6
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
But the stock market is not a computer game. The system has not broken. One player is about to lose money and people will be mad if that does not happen because the player has been a shit since forever
The players found an exploit in the system that uses up resources, and so many players were using that exploit that the system temporarily ran out of resources to support it, and then had to place limit to how frequently this was allowed to occur.
In the real world, resource limitations even more restrictive.
Wall Street does not have meaningful resource restrictions. Charles Fucking Schwab can get as much credit as it wants with a phone call. This excuse is transparently bullshit, and it is mindboggling that people are actually giving it any credence.
Rich person : I have been temporarily brought to my knees because of WSB.
WSB: Impossible! We refuse to believe that this could happen to a rich person.
Somehow, pointing out that WSB achieved one of the goals they tried to achieved -- just not in the way they intended -- is being interpreted as idolization and worship of the billionaire class.
But the stock market is not a computer game. The system has not broken. One player is about to lose money and people will be mad if that does not happen because the player has been a shit since forever
The players found an exploit in the system that uses up resources, and so many players were using that exploit that the system temporarily ran out of resources to support it, and then had to place limit to how frequently this was allowed to occur.
In the real world, resource limitations even more restrictive.
Wall Street does not have meaningful resource restrictions. Charles Fucking Schwab can get as much credit as it wants with a phone call. This excuse is transparently bullshit, and it is mindboggling that people are actually giving it any credence.
I'm not like an actual expert on this, but isn't the "resource" in question the amount of actual shares of these companies?
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
I get confused by the term bourgeois because the meaning I understood from it is "the middle class", which is basically me, and so I don't equate it with billionaires.
But I guess in marxism the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production? Which definitely isn't me and is billionaires.
Anyway, being a billionaire is a moral failing, if we could do a poll on it I think more than 50% of PA members would agree with that statement and probably much higher than 50% of the people posting in this particular thread would agree with it.
At the risk of going completely off topic, I agree with you that being a billionaire is a moral failing. I think being a middle class american puts you so far above the truly less fortunate in the world that it's probably a moral failing as well, although to a lesser extent. It's one of the many many ways in which people are sinners. But I also don't look at a hedge fund manager and hate him or wish him ill. Maybe in his will he gives it all to charity. Maybe he is right now. How am I to know? I'm with you that there needs to be some wealth redistribution, but that's political policy to improve people's lives. Not revenge against the bankers.
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
I've made at most $200000 collectively in my life. 36 years, $200000. I'm in dept roughly $50000 due to student loans from a for profit art school. I was close to graduating, but had to stop because of the 2008 crash causing all different types of problems, and my mother's cancer coming back. For the last 4 years I've worked at one of the better paying jobs I'm qualified for, Walmart. I moved up to a supervisor position two years ago, but lost that position late last year because walmart cut the number of supervisors across the board in order to save labor costs.
If I met Doug McMillan I wouldn't punch him in the face, but I'd definitely spit at it.
Because I don't see much of a future for me, my wife, or my daughter. I'm not raging against anything. I'm broken by the system, and the mere idea that anyone could have well more that they'd ever need and not use it to help those who have practically nothing and are on the brink of ruin is disgusting.
Wall Street does not have meaningful resource restrictions. Charles Fucking Schwab can get as much credit as it wants with a phone call.
Sure, but not instantly, they can't. Because the people who can give them that credit usually want something in return and will use the situation to their own advantage.
Robin hood was able to resume trading within a few hours by making phone calls to secure the money.
How did the reddit investor community learn Gamestop stock was being lended out at that time at those quantities?
0
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
edited January 2021
While it doesn't seem that any rich were eaten. It definitely feels like a soup course with broth made from rich stock - bouillonaire if you will - was had.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
Ironically, apparently lots of investors are shorting GME now because they believe it's inevitably going to fall from $300ish back to $5-10 once the bubble bursts.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
Ironically, apparently lots of investors are shorting GME now because they believe it's inevitably going to fall from $300ish back to $5-10 once the bubble bursts.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
Ironically, apparently lots of investors are shorting GME now because they believe it's inevitably going to fall from $300ish back to $5-10 once the bubble bursts.
I was thinking about that today...cause it sure kind of makes sense to go short it now. (Please be aware that is not advice nor is a comment on my personal stock investing plans.)
The narrative about how investment brokers are actually good and cool people is probably not going to fly on these forums, but keep floating it forever I guess.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
I get confused by the term bourgeois because the meaning I understood from it is "the middle class", which is basically me, and so I don't equate it with billionaires.
But I guess in marxism the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production? Which definitely isn't me and is billionaires.
Anyway, being a billionaire is a moral failing, if we could do a poll on it I think more than 50% of PA members would agree with that statement and probably much higher than 50% of the people posting in this particular thread would agree with it.
Pretty much; Just quickly grabbing from wiki
According to Karl Marx, the bourgeois during NO Middle Ages usually was a self-employed businessman – such as a merchant, banker, or entrepreneur – whose economic role in society was being the financial intermediary to the feudal landlord and the peasant who worked the fief, the land of the lord. Yet, by the 18th century, the time of the Industrial Revolution (1750–1850) and of industrial capitalism, the bourgeoisie had become the economic ruling class who owned the means of production (capital and land), and who controlled the means of coercion (armed forces and legal system, police forces and prison system).
In such a society, the bourgeoisie's ownership of the means of production allowed them to employ and exploit the wage-earning working class (urban and rural), people whose only economic means is labour; and the bourgeois control of the means of coercion suppressed the sociopolitical challenges by the lower classes, and so preserved the economic status quo; workers remained workers, and employers remained employers.[10]
In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourgeois capitalist: (i) the functional capitalists, who are business administrators of the means of production; and (ii) rentier capitalists whose livelihoods derive either from the rent of property or from the interest-income produced by finance capital, or both.[11] In the course of economic relations, the working class and the bourgeoisie continually engage in class struggle, where the capitalists exploit the workers, while the workers resist their economic exploitation, which occurs because the worker owns no means of production, and, to earn a living, seeks employment from the bourgeois capitalist; the worker produces goods and services that are property of the employer, who sells them for a price.
Besides describing the social class who owns the means of production, the Marxist use of the term "bourgeois" also describes the consumerist style of life derived from the ownership of capital and real property. Marx acknowledged the bourgeois industriousness that created wealth, but criticised the moral hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie when they ignored the alleged origins of their wealth: the exploitation of the proletariat, the urban and rural workers. Further sense denotations of "bourgeois" describe ideological concepts such as "bourgeois freedom", which is thought to be opposed to substantive forms of freedom; "bourgeois independence"; "bourgeois personal individuality"; the "bourgeois family"; et cetera, all derived from owning capital and property (see The Communist Manifesto, 1848).
trying to analogize a CEO's verbal gymnastics to someone struggling with poverty is something you can do, but I'm not entirely sure I understand why you'd want to
I mean, the alternative is that you can choose to be intentionally obtuse. Being a CEO doesn't mean your resources are literally without limit with no breaking point.
I mean, wasn't that the entire point of this exercise? To bring rich people to their breaking point where they run out of money? Why is it impossible to believe that the middle man reached his breaking point before the original targets did?
I'm sure you're one of the people who walked away from the classic aesop fable thinking "oh, so the fox could have easily grabbed those grapes when he wanted to. Why else would he say that they were sour?"
You keep framing this as a responsible act, as if it were relative to "cancelling netflix" when you realize you can't afford it.
That's not what this is at all!
This is "I borrowed my friends house to sell high, so I could rebuy it cheaper later to pocket the difference and give them their house back; and they charge me a monthly fee that increases and decreases based on the fluctuating value of the house while I hold onto it, and at any point they could say "Hey, I want my house back now, or you have to pay me the current value of the house."."
It's not removing a future cost, it's saying "hey, uh, because I say so, I will not give you back your house, or pay you back its value", and halting buying of the stock is directly intended to stop the increase of value being produced from the market demand for the stock. Or house. I lost the thread.
One of the ironies here is that the redditors doing all of this are absolutely doing nothing wrong, and are working within the market that the financial institutions created, specifically for the purpose it was created, using the tools that they created for it.
It's just that that market is utter bullshit based entirely on speculation, guesswork, and gambling. When you get to the point you're talking about floats and short ratios and squeezes and shit, you've gone and created a board game you think you rigged in your favor, that you decided to bet the entire worlds economy on. It's just made up rules to a made up game, and the wall street people arguing that halting trading was "responsible" is your friend losing at the game they made up and stopping the game before it ends because "well, you get the point, we will let it play out next time!"
It was completely disingenuous, and the aspect of it that was "responsible", in realizing they didn't have the money to cover the bets they made, was no more honorable than a gambling addict who realizes they can't place a bet because they have no more chips. Chips that were already bought via borrowed money.
I don't think you're idolizing billionaires, just giving them substantially more benefit of the doubt than they actually have earned. This is a lot of the exact same processes that lead to the 2008 crisis, and the only reason it seems to be a smaller scale is that the window we're looking at the GME situation is so small that it's easy to miss that the potential calls on the short values, when the stock is in the +$300 range when it was shorted at $10-20 is in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, that will be leveraged against billions, if not trillions, more.
If you need a comparison, it's if paying that $15 netflix subscription caused you default on your car loan, and defaulting on that car loan caused the dealership to default on their lease, and defaulting on the lease, etc etc. Yes, it may be "responsible" to realize you can't afford netflix, but the real problem is that you're in debt you can't afford in the first place.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
Ironically, apparently lots of investors are shorting GME now because they believe it's inevitably going to fall from $300ish back to $5-10 once the bubble bursts.
Of course, holding a purchased stock is easier than paying short interest forever.
The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
That's why there's a chance this changes the short game, or in the very least makes people think twice about shorting 100%+ of a stock. Cause apparently your 100% short is gonna get memed.
Collusion could take advantage of that by buying lots of stock long before the short is even announced, knowing that WSB will drive the price up.
It may or may not be illegal, but that's never stopped them before.
I can’t help but (ironically) love that redditors and billionaires are basically eating each other by taking advantage of the horrible flaws in the financial system, and yet people are seriously trying to make a nuanced argument on it, as if the last [insert amount of eons here] has given any reason to give the benefit of the doubt to why we shouldn’t enjoy watching people try to eat the rich.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Posts
And if Andrew Left figured out that the ride was over and gave up his reporting on shorts, I'm sure everyone else has too.
I'd say it almost matches how much they hate poor people and minorities and want them to die, but I'm not sure.
Dude, if I ask you, "so why don't you watch Netflix anymore?" and your response it to spend an entire minute talking about how you wanted to be prudent about the entertainment material that enters your house, both to protect yourself and any visitors, I'm not going to think "oh he can't afford it", I'm a) going to wonder what the fuck you're talking about and b) maybe think that you find some of the programing on Netflix immoral or something? It's a deliberate non-answer.
A real answer is "couldn't afford it." He tap dances for 5 minutes not saying that.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that it was a money problem and he was too embarrassed to say it. I think he's an idiot because it makes him look like he has something worse to hide when he can get out of any imagined impropriety just by stating the truth. But don't tell me a 5 minute dog and pony show is him clearly stating what the problem was, because it fucking isn't that.
If someone tells me that it wouldn't be financially prudent to own a Lamborghini due to the massive cost, I'm not going to assume that means he could easily afford one but simply chooses not to.
I'm also not going to a accuse him if being a liar or intentionally misleading me if I find out the next day he only earns $50,000 a year.
If I ask one of my customers why they aren't paying me and the answer is "I can't afford it" my answer is an extremely direct, very slightly more polite, "Fuck you, pay me." Which is what's actually going on.
“Regulation has caused us to need to expand our credit line”.
Not “regulation has caused us to restrict trading in GME”.
It might shock you to learn that lots of people in the real world don't like to admit to being broke, and so they dance around this in order to save face.
There are parents earning minimum wage who don't like to admit to their children that they don't have enough money to buy things. A guy running a multi billion dollar company would be even more reluctant to admit that, because he's not used to being in that position.
I know next to nothing about how these markets work, and when I heard his explanation my immediate thought was, "oh, so they just ran out of money?"
Now, maybe I'm better at reading between the lines on this subject than most people, but I seriously doubt it. If I could understand what he was hinting at, then he wasn't really hiding it.
Sorry, but "you understood what he [supposedly] meant" != "he told it clearly"
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
If I explain that I had to give up my car because I lost my job, that doesn't mean that my boss pointed a gun to my head and forced me to sell my car when he fired me. Nor does it mean that it would literally be impossible for me to hold onto my car if I was willing to sacrifice something else, like rent and food.
Sorry, but you not understanding what he meant != "he didn't discuss this at all."
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
The players found an exploit in the system that uses up resources, and so many players were using that exploit that the system temporarily ran out of resources to support it, and then had to place limit to how frequently this was allowed to occur.
In the real world, resource limitations even more restrictive.
not everyone on the forum is constantly raging at the bourgeois either.
I mean, the alternative is that you can choose to be intentionally obtuse. Being a CEO doesn't mean your resources are literally without limit with no breaking point.
I mean, wasn't that the entire point of this exercise? To bring rich people to their breaking point where they run out of money? Why is it impossible to believe that the middle man reached his breaking point before the original targets did?
I'm sure you're one of the people who walked away from the classic aesop fable thinking "oh, so the fox could have easily grabbed those grapes when he wanted to. Why else would he say that they were sour?"
Yes*, but the response to them isn’t.
*well no, but not worth arguing about
"these people apparently didn't have enough money to keep going" != "these people are good and cool."
I get confused by the term bourgeois because the meaning I understood from it is "the middle class", which is basically me, and so I don't equate it with billionaires.
But I guess in marxism the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production? Which definitely isn't me and is billionaires.
Anyway, being a billionaire is a moral failing, if we could do a poll on it I think more than 50% of PA members would agree with that statement and probably much higher than 50% of the people posting in this particular thread would agree with it.
We'll get em
Wall Street does not have meaningful resource restrictions. Charles Fucking Schwab can get as much credit as it wants with a phone call. This excuse is transparently bullshit, and it is mindboggling that people are actually giving it any credence.
Rich person : I have been temporarily brought to my knees because of WSB.
WSB: Impossible! We refuse to believe that this could happen to a rich person.
Somehow, pointing out that WSB achieved one of the goals they tried to achieved -- just not in the way they intended -- is being interpreted as idolization and worship of the billionaire class.
I'm not like an actual expert on this, but isn't the "resource" in question the amount of actual shares of these companies?
At the risk of going completely off topic, I agree with you that being a billionaire is a moral failing. I think being a middle class american puts you so far above the truly less fortunate in the world that it's probably a moral failing as well, although to a lesser extent. It's one of the many many ways in which people are sinners. But I also don't look at a hedge fund manager and hate him or wish him ill. Maybe in his will he gives it all to charity. Maybe he is right now. How am I to know? I'm with you that there needs to be some wealth redistribution, but that's political policy to improve people's lives. Not revenge against the bankers.
I've made at most $200000 collectively in my life. 36 years, $200000. I'm in dept roughly $50000 due to student loans from a for profit art school. I was close to graduating, but had to stop because of the 2008 crash causing all different types of problems, and my mother's cancer coming back. For the last 4 years I've worked at one of the better paying jobs I'm qualified for, Walmart. I moved up to a supervisor position two years ago, but lost that position late last year because walmart cut the number of supervisors across the board in order to save labor costs.
If I met Doug McMillan I wouldn't punch him in the face, but I'd definitely spit at it.
Because I don't see much of a future for me, my wife, or my daughter. I'm not raging against anything. I'm broken by the system, and the mere idea that anyone could have well more that they'd ever need and not use it to help those who have practically nothing and are on the brink of ruin is disgusting.
Sure, but not instantly, they can't. Because the people who can give them that credit usually want something in return and will use the situation to their own advantage.
Robin hood was able to resume trading within a few hours by making phone calls to secure the money.
How did the reddit investor community learn Gamestop stock was being lended out at that time at those quantities?
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
Short interest is public just like trade information. It goes through the clearing house and everyone knows.
Ironically, apparently lots of investors are shorting GME now because they believe it's inevitably going to fall from $300ish back to $5-10 once the bubble bursts.
It’s a matter of when, not if
I was thinking about that today...cause it sure kind of makes sense to go short it now. (Please be aware that is not advice nor is a comment on my personal stock investing plans.)
Pretty much; Just quickly grabbing from wiki
You keep framing this as a responsible act, as if it were relative to "cancelling netflix" when you realize you can't afford it.
That's not what this is at all!
This is "I borrowed my friends house to sell high, so I could rebuy it cheaper later to pocket the difference and give them their house back; and they charge me a monthly fee that increases and decreases based on the fluctuating value of the house while I hold onto it, and at any point they could say "Hey, I want my house back now, or you have to pay me the current value of the house."."
It's not removing a future cost, it's saying "hey, uh, because I say so, I will not give you back your house, or pay you back its value", and halting buying of the stock is directly intended to stop the increase of value being produced from the market demand for the stock. Or house. I lost the thread.
One of the ironies here is that the redditors doing all of this are absolutely doing nothing wrong, and are working within the market that the financial institutions created, specifically for the purpose it was created, using the tools that they created for it.
It's just that that market is utter bullshit based entirely on speculation, guesswork, and gambling. When you get to the point you're talking about floats and short ratios and squeezes and shit, you've gone and created a board game you think you rigged in your favor, that you decided to bet the entire worlds economy on. It's just made up rules to a made up game, and the wall street people arguing that halting trading was "responsible" is your friend losing at the game they made up and stopping the game before it ends because "well, you get the point, we will let it play out next time!"
It was completely disingenuous, and the aspect of it that was "responsible", in realizing they didn't have the money to cover the bets they made, was no more honorable than a gambling addict who realizes they can't place a bet because they have no more chips. Chips that were already bought via borrowed money.
I don't think you're idolizing billionaires, just giving them substantially more benefit of the doubt than they actually have earned. This is a lot of the exact same processes that lead to the 2008 crisis, and the only reason it seems to be a smaller scale is that the window we're looking at the GME situation is so small that it's easy to miss that the potential calls on the short values, when the stock is in the +$300 range when it was shorted at $10-20 is in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, that will be leveraged against billions, if not trillions, more.
If you need a comparison, it's if paying that $15 netflix subscription caused you default on your car loan, and defaulting on that car loan caused the dealership to default on their lease, and defaulting on the lease, etc etc. Yes, it may be "responsible" to realize you can't afford netflix, but the real problem is that you're in debt you can't afford in the first place.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Of course, holding a purchased stock is easier than paying short interest forever.
The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Collusion could take advantage of that by buying lots of stock long before the short is even announced, knowing that WSB will drive the price up.
It may or may not be illegal, but that's never stopped them before.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.