The $GME gamestonk thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mbardu, Jan 27, 2021.

  1. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    No, my point from day one, which you keep side stepping, is it looks an awful lot like most of the shorts that predated the run-up in GME's price were closed by Monday, and reported short interest numbers are suspect in real time so continuing to point to the 140% short interest at the start of the week which fell to 120% by the end of the week as evidence of a ton of short interest misses the fact that those numbers are on a two week lag. Some of the very sources you posted to trying to argue with me are the ones now saying short interest has fallen into the 50s.

    Devil's advocate, then - what do you think would have happened to GME's stock price had Robinhood not restricted margin purchases and then opening new positions?
     
  2. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Sorry man, missed this earlier. Two quick points, my understanding was Melvin was short the stock, not options in the stock, but hypothetically, say they were short calls in GME, and say those were physical delivery and no cash settlement calls, they could have closed easily enough in two other ways, by selling the call, or by purchasing an offsetting long call in GME at the same strike price and expiration date and offsetting them at the exchange level.

    EDIT - and moot point anyway, as both Melvin and Citron have confirmed that they closed their positions earlier that week, Melvin on Tuesday when the stock traded from $80-140, and Citron "at a price of around $90 a share," which would also imply they closed Tuesday, which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. :lol: Wednesday and Thursday weren't a short squeeze or a "gamma squeeze," and if options were the culprit I believe Friday was the expiration day so that's when you would have seen some fireworks, instead of a ~50% decline in the share price.

    Broken record here, but if the goal here was to hurt hedge funds, then right on, but that trade was done before the stock broke $140 a share. Everything else appears to be retail buyers bidding the stock up in a bubble, thinking shorts would still have to cover at some point.

    End Edit

    I'd love to see that chart, frankly. I'm looking at DXY since 1/1/1966, and barring a spike in the early 80s when Volker went to war against double-digit inflation (and the dollar strengthened as short term rates ratcheted higher), DXY has been pretty consistently range-bound between 80 and 120. If you're seeing something different, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
    StevenC likes this.
  3. Mathemagician

    Mathemagician SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    4,147
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    The entire thread Drew has just been saying “whoever holds this too long is likely going to end up a bag holder, and it’s impossible to promise to know when to exit”.

    That’s it, man has just been trying to not hype shit up for the sake of hyping it.

    I don’t know how that is a doom & gloom prediction?
     
    Jonathan20022, TedEH and StevenC like this.
  4. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Thanks man. I guess silly me, should have just gotten on the damned rocket ship. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  5. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    I actually do agree a lot of shorts probably exited at 100$, so no disagreeing here. Never said shorts from 4$ were still there when the stock was at 400 :lol: .
    I however also think it's likely that plenty of others jumped back in at 200/300, like you said yourself looked like a good move. I wouldn't even be surprised if Melvin would have been among them. And it clearly looks like those had a golden opportunity to exit on the manufactured drop to 100$ once the shit was hitting the fan towards 500$. Whew, what a lucky coincidence :lol:

    I don't present S3/Ortex as gospel. Just as a data point among others point to be open to and think about the implications.
    You're the one flip-flopping on them, only liking them when you think they serve your point, demeaning them otherwise (like a rear view mirror to drive on the highway amirite, except when they serve your argument) :lol: . I don't have any reason to doubt them a priori when they say the short has now dropped for example, but then again, I don't pretend I know for sure.

    What would or could have happened? Just check the momentum early January 28th. A bit of a battle sure, but still heavy upwards momentum. We were at the top of the hype, and it was almost at 500$. It could certainly have doubled again. Who are we to say otherwise, it had doubled a couple of times already the week before. If you now trust S3/Ortex apparently, then short at that point was still reported at over 100% - with the stock doubled in price compared to the day prior. 1000$ would have certainly hurt for those 100% of shorts.

    Do I know for sure it could have reached 1000$? No, unlike some people, I don't pretend to know for sure and use some sources to selectively justify my bias only when it suits me :lol: . But it's a possibility. We won't know for sure anyway, because it was blatantly manipulated (which still doesn't concern you), so that did not happen.

    Now, does this mean it would have gone to 1000$ and stayed there? Of course not. We all know the company and the share's worths. It's going to 15$ one way or another.
    But for a bit, it could definitely have killed a few short whales while putting some $$$ in WSB's pockets.

    No doom and gloom, and definitely anyone going long on GME was doing dangerous gambling for sure.
    To cut off even that gambling by changing the rules mid-game while the gambler happens to be winning just rubs some people the wrong way though.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  6. Mathemagician

    Mathemagician SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    4,147
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    I agree with that. Robinhood/Citadel/clearing houses/other HF’s should NOT have gotten a life preserver that allowed them to flip positions after changing the rules mid game.

    But given that Janet Yellen has allegedly received massive speaking fees from Citadel I don’t see regulators punishing anyone who strong-armed retailers and ruined their winning trade.
     
    mbardu likes this.
  7. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    5,196
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    All those goddamned socialist hippies in the world of high finance :lol:. I guess when you're a hammer, everything is a nail, and liberal conspiracies are the thing now. It's actually impressive at WSB that even though there certainly an air of conspiracy bandied-about, the members seem good at keeping politics out of it.
     
  8. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Regulatory capture.
    Riggers gonna rig'
     
  9. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    SEC is looking into it. That said, considering Robinhood tapped about $1.1b in lines of credit and then took capital infusions of $2.3B to help them meet exchange margin requirements, I think the more likely story here is they simply couldn't afford to keep opening long positions. They're a shoddily run company, remember these are the same guys who got nailed by the SEC for selling client orders to high frequency traders for execution, which would be shady even if they were disclosing it.

    Ok, real quick, three things.

    1) I've been very clear that we don't know what short interest is in a name in real time. That's a very different story than saying we don't know what it was historically. If it was unclear when I said that we now have a pretty good picture of what was happening to short interest at the start of last week, and that came across as my saying we have a good idea what short interest is today, then I apologize for the confusion, but I was absolutely talking about last week and not real time data.

    2) Frankly I'd never even heard of S2 and Ortex before you pointed them out to me, but you pointed to them as sources that were saying short interest was still around 120%, back on Friday. They's now both saying that short interest fell heavily week over week, aka pretty much what I'd been saying.

    3) You realize that Robinhood was only one trading platform, and a rather small one at that, right? And that most other trading platforms and brokerages, including the one I use, still allowed users to transact in GME, though on mine margin requirements were increased 50% (which makes sense, anyone buying GME this week on margin is an idiot, and losses would quickly become the platform's problem if it was bought on margin). And beyond that, when Robinhood allowed unrestricted cash basis purchases again on Friday, it merely bounced to the ballpark of Wednesday's levels before trading off the rest of the day and Friday? Suggesting it would have continued to rise defies all the evidence we have. Demand wasn't there. Short interest had evaporated. End of story.

    Also:

    Geting snide here REALLY doesn't suit you.
     
    StevenC and Jonathan20022 like this.
  10. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    This is still the same selective argument. You can't have your cake and it eat too.
    Either we can know short interest with a small lag (nobody said real time, stop with the strawman arguments), or we cannot.

    If you believe we can, then reporting on the 29/30 was still showing very elevated interest, so that would have still meant very elevated interest during the 28th situation (that you kept avoiding any reply to). Reporting now shows short interest more than half- which again, I have no reason to doubt in principle.

    If you believe we cannot, then you have no way to know, not today, not last week, not until the 9th, and you can't selectively say "I know it was down last week" , and "we know it's down 50% today haha look I was right all along". Most likely that's true TBH, especially now after last week's fiasco, but we would have to wait for the 9th to know per your own argument.

    Make your call- can't have it both ways.

    Sure sure, as before it's technically true. But it's just a tad surprising that RH liquidated GME, and specifically GME. Specifically at the right time at the very bottom too! Even for people who had larger holdings in other names. Even including people who were not trading on margin. Why not liquidate other names of those GME holders who no longer had enough margin? Why go and sell GME from other holders instead - even those without margin? Specifically after a -75% drop and just before a +200% increase too? Nothing suspicious at all here I guess?

    It's useless to say "look, buying didn't resume on friday", that's a moot point. 1-Once momentum is gone, it's gone. 2-Once those shorts exited at 100$ at RH users' expense on that magical drop to 100, they're out, they no longer feel the pressure. So of course it was done on Friday. It was done after those 3 hours of unprecedented manipulated action. Worst is, you know very well that this argument is moot. You know very well that killing momentum would kill such a trade. You don't have to bring up a bad faith argument just to muddy the waters, that's just A+ level of dishonest.

    Also, I specifically didn't single out RH. They are not the only participants for sure, they were not the only ones with restrictions, and you know how momentum is easy to stop. As far as they are concerned, I just wanted to show a few tidbits of how they could be even more suspicious than the others. Not problematic or suspicious to you, fair enough.

    I don't want to be snide, but it's infuriating. You don't have to beat the dead horse with the same strawman arguments, patronization, bad faith arguments, and then picking supporting data to make your case then discarding the same exact data when it actually turns against you.

    Again, yeah a lot of things you say are technically true. A lot of your speculation is likely what happened too. Including the fact that going short at 200/300 would have appeared to be a good move at the time and it's likely a lot of people made just that move (to exit on that magical 100$ drop for a nice profit at retail's expense...isn't that just sweet and dandy). Much like the stock going back to 15$, we didn't question that. Same as agreeing that nobody should go in a GME trade expecting to be a sound investment. Nobody argued that. Literally it was a gamble.
    Those points are irrelevant and there's no merit in those arguments because they were the same exact arguments that everybody made before the three prior +100% jumps, yet it did double time and time again. There was simply no telling whether it could double once more...until the momentum was artificially broken by brokers/clearing houses/HFs/take your pick. So instead of liquidating a hungry over-leveraged HF, it's those RH margin users who were liquidated in the course of a few minutes, and saw their shares sold for 110$ when they were worth triple that an hour earlier or later.

    The way all of it unfolded is as usual a great example of how the whole thing is rigged, and there's no two ways about it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  11. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    6,644
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    This is now basically the "Drew says some things that sound reasonable to me but I don't fully understand them, and mbardu shouts that everyone is wrong and everything is rigged" thread.
     
    StevenC and Jonathan20022 like this.
  12. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    39,412
    Likes Received:
    33,436
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    What you have to understand is that he's in it just for the argument. Not to win/lose or change opinions or better express a view, but just the act of the back and forth. That's the endgame.

    You just have to let go. That's what I've gotten better at. Still gets me sometimes. The dude is good. :lol:
     
  13. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    6,644
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    It's nice for it not to be me doing it this time :lol:.
     
  14. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    39,412
    Likes Received:
    33,436
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    Fool me once...:lol:
     
    TedEH likes this.
  15. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    I appreciate the compliment, but I gotta be humble here.
    I just learned from the best ;)
     
  16. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Yeah, you know, honestly, I'm wasting my time here. I'm out. I'm arguing with a guy who says he AGREES most of the shorts were out by $100/share, yet telling me I'm "being inconsistent" when I say that the shorts were out by a day when the stock traded between $80 and $140. I've got better things to do with my free time. You all have fun with him. :lol:
     
    Jonathan20022 likes this.
  17. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Cheers to you if you're done!
    No need to voluntarily mischaracterize what I said on the way out just to get a cheap "ha ha!", because you don't want to answer. That's just bad faith.

    I keep saying other shorts likely came in at 200/300, like you were the first to suggest was a good idea at the time. So those are obviously two entirely different things.
    And you know it. So trying to pretend otherwise is just admitting 100% you were not even trying to be genuine, even in your last post.

    Anyway, bye!
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  18. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    31,091
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Sigh. There are two sorts of people in this world; those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. Later!
     
    Jonathan20022 and StevenC like this.
  19. Avedas

    Avedas SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I was in a few months ago, so certainly not that early :) Definitely didn't yolo in either, just threw a bit of play money at it. I was going to sell at earnings call to cash in on the new console cycle, but we never made it there.
     
  20. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    5,196
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    So Elon Musk tweeted something weird and some people on the sub think that it's signaling that he's going to buy GameStop. It's kinda-sorta approaching QAnons watching the inauguration & waiting for the mass arrest level of delusion but who knows- the stock market has nothing on reality when it comes to volatility.
     

Share This Page