GME, Hedge Funds, Citadel and Reddit

[GG1]

Just now, Gary M said:

 

But the reddit guys bought in low, their loss is only on paper, while the hedgehogs loss was real cash.

 

Somebody kept buying all the way to $350, and somebody is still buying in the $200's, and it ain't the hedgies.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

But the reddit guys bought in low, their loss is only on paper, while the hedgehogs loss was real cash.

 

Somebody was buying at $300, $310, $325, etc.

 

[Ann]

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1354865137895813123

 

[KD in CA]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Somebody was buying at $300, $310, $325, etc.

 

 

I'm just catching up on this....my assumption is that most of the pros took their beating and are now out, but lots of individual 'me too' followers bought in this morning before the dive.

[Gary M]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Somebody was buying at $300, $310, $325, etc.

 

 

Yeah I understand that, i'm thinking the reddit guys got out after they got the ball rolling or are willing to take their loss to see the hedgehogs take a bigger one. Yes some people who got in late are going to get burned, but maybe they shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1354848771184750598

 

 

https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1354828487903879170

 

[Gary M]

4 minutes ago, Meazza said:

 

Umm, what?

 

if the reddit dudes bought at $15 and are stuck with it at $300 , even if it goes to $15 or lower their loss is nowhere near the hedgehogs who had to buy at $200 to replace their borrowed shares.

 

Or am I missing something.

[GG1]

Yahoo won't let me link just the video.  I recommend the video that's 8:31 which features the CEO of another retail trading platform who explains why the restrictions were placed.  Essentially the volatility has caused the clearing costs to skyrocket, which places the brokers at extreme risks to completing the trades.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME?p=GME&.tsrc=fin-srch

 

 

 

 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Yeah I understand that, i'm thinking the reddit guys got out after they got the ball rolling or are willing to take their loss to see the hedgehogs take a bigger one. Yes some people who got in late are going to get burned, but maybe they shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

I would say, just by reading the r/wallstreetbets sub reddit, that there is strong support to hold. Whether many are doing that or not, the average Joe can't know right now.

[Nouseforaname]

3 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

if the reddit dudes bought at $15 and are stuck with it at $300 , even if it goes to $15 or lower their loss is nowhere near the hedgehogs who had to buy at $200 to replace their borrowed shares.

 

Or am I missing something.

 

For the price to have gone up that much, pretty sure that more regular dudes than hedge funds are getting burned.

[GG1]

3 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

if the reddit dudes bought at $15 and are stuck with it at $300 , even if it goes to $15 or lower their loss is nowhere near the hedgehogs who had to buy at $200 to replace their borrowed shares.

 

Or am I missing something.

 

You're missing the fuller timeline.  Much of the buying activity started after the stock got pushed up over $150.

[Gary M]

2 minutes ago, Meazza said:

 

For the price to have gone up that much, pretty sure that more regular dudes than hedge funds are getting burned.

 

Didn't they hedge 140% of the stock, that 40% would have to be bought back twice?

[GG1]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

I would say, just by reading the r/wallstreetbets sub reddit, that there is strong support to hold. Whether many are doing that or not, the average Joe can't know right now.

 

And if this were a chop shop sending out these recommendations, the FBI & SEC would be right up their butt

[snafu]

23 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Yeah I understand that, i'm thinking the reddit guys got out after they got the ball rolling or are willing to take their loss to see the hedgehogs take a bigger one. Yes some people who got in late are going to get burned, but maybe they shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

 

But that's where you get into whether the reddit guys manipulated the market to get the "guys who shouldn't have been there" in.  Which, to me, is just as bad as the hedge guys that they complain about.

 

[GG1]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

But that's where you get into whether the reddit guys manipulated the market to get the "guys who shouldn't have been there" in.  Which, to me, is just as bad as the hedge guys that they complain about.

 

 

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

If "buying because more than two-thirds the float is short" is market manipulation, then I'm guilty of market manipulation many times over.

 

Not market manipulation, but investor manipulation.   

 

Urging to get in early to burn the shorts is fine.  Urging people to hold at $300, when the shorts have liquidated, is not.

[KD in CA]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not really hard to understand, if people put in 15 minutes to learn how stock transactions are filled.  

 

But then, given how badly CNBC is butchering the story, why should regular people understand what's going on?

 

Why bother when I can just buy GME and watch it go to 1,000?

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

If "buying because more than two-thirds the float is short" is market manipulation, then I'm guilty of market manipulation many times over.

 

I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't understand this.

Seems like you were referring to my post, but I too ignorant to tell.

 

[KD in CA]

1 minute ago, GG1 said:

 

 

Not market manipulation, but investor manipulation.   

 

Urging to get in early to burn the shorts is fine.  Urging people to hold at $300, when the shorts have liquidated, is not.

 

Exactly.  The battle is over, the shorts got burned. Yippie.  Now it's just a sucker play.  There's only one place this stock will end up and it's near zero.

 

Seems like a good time to sh.....nevermind.

[GG1]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't understand this.

Seems like you were referring to my post, but I too ignorant to tell.

 

 

Hopefully my post above resolved the confusion.   The reddit guys weren't manipulating the market by opportunistically attacking the shorts.   The same can't be said by urging people to keep the holdings 

[GG1]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

The CEO of Interactive Brokers is on CNBC right now saying short squeezes are illegal.

 

Not "should be."  Are.

 

Can CNBC find anyone to interview who isn't a raging moron on this story?

 

But no issues with naked short selling?   What an f'ng retard.