7 ms·

The GameStop Fiasco Proves We’re in a ‘Meme Stock’ Bubble

51 points by dgudkov 6y ago

bondarchuk 6y ago
If it's really a short squeeze, then I think it's unfair to say that it's a bubble caused by small retail investors. It's actually a bubble caused by overexposed shorters who are forced to buy at any price due to their own doings. Of course noone likes when the small man makes money at the expense of big wall street firms, but it takes some mental gymnastics to view simply buying and then not selling as a more nefarious financial instrument than shorting.
- vga805 6y ago
  Shorting 140% of the float no less. This falls entirely on these big funds.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >Shorting 140% of the float no less. This falls entirely on these big funds. This is the real issue. Everyone crying "Market manipulation! Call the SEC!" is right, except it's entirely Wall Street's doing. If anything good comes of this, we will see tighter regulation around short limits after this.
    - AlanYx 6y ago
      Does anyone have a link to a good explanation of how 140% of the float can be shorted, given the restrictions that the SEC imposed on naked shorting in 2008? Is there a specific loophole that is being consistently exploited?
      - ohgodplsno 6y ago
        No loophole, simply that the SEC does not exist or matter if you're a hedge fund.
      - gruez 6y ago
        From Matt Levine: >There are 100 shares. A owns 90 of them, B owns 10. A lends her 90 shares to C, who shorts them all to D. Now A owns 90 shares, B owns 10 and D owns 90—there are 100 shares outstanding, but190 shares show up on ownership lists. (The accounts balance because C owes 90 shares to A, giving C, in a sense, negative 90 shares.) Short interest is 90 shares out of 100 outstanding. Now D lends her 90 shares to E, who shorts them all to F. Now A owns 90, B 10, D 90 and F 90, for a total of 280 shares. Short interest is 180 shares out of 100 outstanding. No problem! No big deal! You can just keep re-borrowing the shares. F can lend them to G! It's fine.
        Vespasian 6y ago
        Is ownership recorded like this in reality or does A transfers her shares to C and gets an IOU (secured by the margin) in return? Then ownership records would not exceed the number of outstanding shares
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Is that number actually correct? I don’t know the details on how margin lending of us stocks is reported. However I know from European markets that that number would be complex to measure correctly.
    - voisin 6y ago
      Yes it is correct. There’s no loophole. I borrow a share and sell it to someone. Someone else borrows that share and sells it to someone. Same share, borrowed twice and sold twice. As long as each short seller maintains the equity requirement, there’s no issue. What I am unclear on is who takes the counter party risk in the event the short seller cannot make margin calls and goes bust. The exchange I assume? Who insures the exchange if something like this happens where $10 billion is created overnight at the expense of short sellers?
      - throwaway4good 6y ago
        In Europe there is a settlement window of 3 days (and longer as failing to deliver only draws a fee) which makes it possible to sell stocks without holding them.
- mam2 6y ago
  so much price. it's not just gme, it's all the thigs shorted by melvin capital: Bed bath and beyond for example. This was particularly helped by literally all the other hedge fund once they realised the short squeeze was going to happen anyway.
- Clewza313 6y ago
  Surely (almost) everybody likes it when that happens? It's hard to have a less sympathetic antagonist than a filthy-rich hedge fund like Melvin that's trying to mint even more money by crushing a company like GameStop that many people have fond memories of.
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    This could literally save GameStop. They could (should?) perform a share issue, which would give them much needed capital to reduce their 485.50M debts and or allow a partial pivot (see Toys R Us's re-launch attempt pre-COVID). Regardless of short-squeeze Vs. "meme stock" this is good for GameStop if they capitalize on it.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      They did do a share issue.
      - Someone1234 6y ago
        When? They still have 69.75M outstanding shares, which you can see here isn't an increase: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GME/gamestop/shares-outstanding https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GME/gamestop/share... They certainly haven't issued anything near the current price ($200+).
        shawabawa3 6y ago
        apparently they have pre-approval to release $200m in shares, but perhaps are waiting for after the short squeeze to issue them (take this with a grain of salt, read from a /r/wsb post)
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    The issue is Melvin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with Wall Street. How can you short a stock to the tune of 140% of all outstanding shares, enjoy a lend ratio of 23% and then bitch and moan when people buy in and cause the lend ratio to blow up to 83%?
mFixman 6y ago
Here's a thing I don't understand: will we ever leave the meme stock bubble? Most stockmarket gains have been happening with companies with no dividends and no executive control for at least a decade. Other than very few exceptions like Apple that one time large companies aren't buying back stock either. Why should the price of individual stock still have some correlation to the company's profit?
- sombremesa 6y ago
  This is an interesting question to ask, regardless of GME. The Robinhood app may have caused an 'eternal September' for the market. The difference is that people don't have an infinite appetite for losing money, and people are on aggregate losing money as one does when trading with a short term mindset. So I would say that we will eventually leave the meme stock bubble, but it's anyone's guess as to when.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    I think by this logic, casinos wouldn't exist.
    - SXX 6y ago
      Casinos are highly regulated business with games having constant and verified return rate. E.g if you make 1,000,000 of $1 bets on slots in registered and regulated online casino then you'll actually retain 95-98% of the money. People who are addicted to gambling and risk aren't there to bet $1 so they lose everything much faster. It's can be different for offline gambling where people go to play once in a month, but online companies related to gambling work hard to avoid burning people out too fast. After all they want sustainable income which come from audience that trust them. Stock market on ther side doesn't have anything like this and it's can make people go broke much faster than casinos do.
- gegtik 6y ago
  This has been the conclusion with real estate - fundamentals to outside economy has been permanently severed in many markets. Why not other assets?
shanehoban 6y ago
No it doesn't. There were more shares shorted than were available. Nothing to do with meme stocks.
- rapsey 6y ago
  And it could have worked if it went unnoticed by the public. It makes a perfect underdog story of the common man sticking it to a hedge fund.
JoiDegn 6y ago
This is not great coverage imo. It focuses on retail investors when arguably the big wall street guys had more of a role to play. By overshorting the stock (140% of outstanding stocks were shorted) they made themselves vulnerable to what happened afterwards. The GameStop shares had a couple of things going for it: - Ryan Cohen who previously sold Chewy.com invested heavily and joined the board - Higher than expected sales of (legacy) games on discs - Strong cash position So WallstreetBets picking up the stock does not come completely out of the blue. I would say the 'Fiasco' has as much to do with Melvin and other short sellers making mistakes as it has to do with retail investors.
- lostphilosopher 6y ago
  I've seen it claimed that "big Wall Street" was on both sides of this. HFT firms that pay for access to RobinHood's data joined the run on GameStop based on movement on RobinHood adding significant initial dollars to those invested by the Reddit crowd. I don't know enough about this space to know if this is true/possible and my sources so far are "randos on the internet" so I'm not investing (har har har) in the idea, but I'm curious.
boredumb 6y ago
Amazing to watch the media as a whole last night attempt to blame people on reddit and 4chan for this "fiasco" and ignoring the underlying culprits who spent BILLIONs in over shorting an equity and were caught with their pants down. How This isn't a criminal act on the part of these institutions who knowingly over leveraged themselves in hopes no one would have noticed and would have been able to make billions more off of retail investors and legitimate investors is beyond me. "That's right, it was I who committed the sleazy transactions and short armed robbery. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for these meddling kids!"
- kwoff 6y ago
  Louis Rossman (Apple repair guy) had a similar great take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUbJcGoYQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUbJcGoYQ4 (and followup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdpVzzXWOTA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdpVzzXWOTA )
  - boredumb 6y ago
    What a time to be alive where an apple repair youtuber is more trustworthy than cable networks.
Traster 6y ago
I always find this style of reporting rather unedifying - >No one is in charge of this effort, though, of course, some voices are louder than others. There has been a history of moderators on WSB using their position to push certain agendas. I think it's more accurate to say "We don't know of any group co-ordinating this effort" - because I don't think its far fetched that there is one. All this article is really saying is "I've taken this sub-reddit at complete face value." >They’ve shown, in a sense, that if you pick the right stocks, a self-organized community of small investors can make them rise, Some users are posting investments of over $750k that are now up to $22m in value. How many people on WSB are actually investing and driving up the price? 10? 100? 1000? We have no idea. I personally find it hard to believe that 1000 redditors are investing enough to actually matter compared to the top investors who are investing hundreds of thousands.
- jiofih 6y ago
  There are many posts there with sizable investments, up to $1M. A few of those + thousands of smaller trades can definitely move the price. Think 50k people investing 1000 each.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I'm not saying there's definitely only a handful of people actually driving the price. What I'm saying is that I don't think we have any real evidence about the number of people really involved, the level of their investment. The only evidence this article is presenting is literally just taking reddit comments at face value. This situation could likely have been created by a single ballsy hedge fund if they wanted to, with the comments on reddit being entirely fictional.
    - jiofih 6y ago
      That would be really easy to spot from the volume and order book.
- vga805 6y ago
  WSBs has 2 million users. What on earth makes you think 1000 redditors is hard to believe? It was likely hundreds of thousands before it went viral.
jiofih 6y ago
Can’t read. Paywall.
- gegtik 6y ago
  archive.is cheat code: https://archive.is/sF4Ww https://archive.is/sF4Ww
boredumb 6y ago
After a few seconds of googling past the headlines blaming some kids on reddit. "Cohen’s former hedge fund, SAC Capital, came to dominate share trading on Wall Street before it pleaded guilty to insider trading charges in 2013 and paid $1.8bn in penalties. Cohen escaped criminal indictment himself despite being the living, breathing heart of SAC Capital (its name came from his initials) and now runs a private fund with $11bn in assets." (Point72 is the fund under Cohen who contributed nearly a billion dollars to Melvin for funding of these shorts) These are people who have and are doing shady things and are getting collectively punished by people who's financial expertise stems from pepe the frog predictions moreso than the government did.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
austincheney 6y ago
On Monday I bought AMC at 4.63 on the news they avoided bankruptcy. Monday closed at a minor loss for me. Yesterday closed at 4.96 a minor profit. In premarket trading it has reached up to 17.5 and has since tumbled back to 15.
- criddell 6y ago
  Did you buy AMC on the advice of a meme?
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Nope. I wasn't aware of the memes. I saw when GME hit $38 from $19 and thought I had already missed the bus.
kace91 6y ago
Matt Levine has been covering these news for a couple days on his column, pretty interesting stuff: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...
Xcelerate 6y ago
I've never really understand what the price of a stock actually means. My simplified understanding of the stock market is that: 1) you have a company with a good idea, but the company does not have enough money to fund the idea, so they sell shares of the company to shareholders in exchange for capital 2) using this capital, the company grows and succeeds, and in return it pays portions of its profits back to its shareholders/investors in the form of dividends. However, this all falls apart when the company never issues dividends, as many public companies have yet to ever do so. At this point, what does it matter how well the company does or what their profits are? If no dividends will ever be paid, then the stock price is irrelevant to the company as long as it issues no new shares (or if all remaining shares are held by the founder to retain majority voting rights). Whether the stock goes from $10 to $1,000 has no effect on the company, right? So what does the price mean at this point?
- aphextron 6y ago
  >So what does the price mean at this point? What does the price of anything mean? You can look at things like fundamentals; EPS, P/E, etc. but ultimately it just comes down to what everyone else agrees on it being worth.
  - ivanbakel 6y ago
    There's a difference between a stock that doesn't get you dividends and an item with a sensible expected worth. Sure, it's hard to put a concrete price on a 2x4, but you at least understand what value people see in it - the way supply and demand affect the price are reflections of the worth of lumber as a building material (or whatever else). But the price of a stock is nonsense - if you don't own enough to influence the company, and the stocks don't pay out, then the price is just money that moves in and out of your account. You can't even really say that the price of a stock is an agreement of its arbitrary value; you sell the stock because you expect it to go down, and you sell the stock to someone else who expects it to go up. If you buy a stock at the peak, you are paying the highest ever price for its lowest ever value.
    - 6y ago

51 points by dgudkov 6y ago

If it's really a short squeeze, then I think it's unfair to say that it's a bubble caused by small retail investors. It's actually a bubble caused by overexposed shorters who are forced to buy at any price due to their own doings. Of course noone likes when the small man makes money at the expense of big wall street firms, but it takes some mental gymnastics to view simply buying and then not selling as a more nefarious financial instrument than shorting.

vga805 6y ago
Shorting 140% of the float no less. This falls entirely on these big funds.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >Shorting 140% of the float no less. This falls entirely on these big funds. This is the real issue. Everyone crying "Market manipulation! Call the SEC!" is right, except it's entirely Wall Street's doing. If anything good comes of this, we will see tighter regulation around short limits after this.
  - AlanYx 6y ago
    Does anyone have a link to a good explanation of how 140% of the float can be shorted, given the restrictions that the SEC imposed on naked shorting in 2008? Is there a specific loophole that is being consistently exploited?
    - ohgodplsno 6y ago
      No loophole, simply that the SEC does not exist or matter if you're a hedge fund.
    - gruez 6y ago
      From Matt Levine: >There are 100 shares. A owns 90 of them, B owns 10. A lends her 90 shares to C, who shorts them all to D. Now A owns 90 shares, B owns 10 and D owns 90—there are 100 shares outstanding, but190 shares show up on ownership lists. (The accounts balance because C owes 90 shares to A, giving C, in a sense, negative 90 shares.) Short interest is 90 shares out of 100 outstanding. Now D lends her 90 shares to E, who shorts them all to F. Now A owns 90, B 10, D 90 and F 90, for a total of 280 shares. Short interest is 180 shares out of 100 outstanding. No problem! No big deal! You can just keep re-borrowing the shares. F can lend them to G! It's fine.
      - Vespasian 6y ago
        Is ownership recorded like this in reality or does A transfers her shares to C and gets an IOU (secured by the margin) in return? Then ownership records would not exceed the number of outstanding shares
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Is that number actually correct? I don’t know the details on how margin lending of us stocks is reported. However I know from European markets that that number would be complex to measure correctly.
  - voisin 6y ago
    Yes it is correct. There’s no loophole. I borrow a share and sell it to someone. Someone else borrows that share and sells it to someone. Same share, borrowed twice and sold twice. As long as each short seller maintains the equity requirement, there’s no issue. What I am unclear on is who takes the counter party risk in the event the short seller cannot make margin calls and goes bust. The exchange I assume? Who insures the exchange if something like this happens where $10 billion is created overnight at the expense of short sellers?
    - throwaway4good 6y ago
      In Europe there is a settlement window of 3 days (and longer as failing to deliver only draws a fee) which makes it possible to sell stocks without holding them.
mam2 6y ago
so much price. it's not just gme, it's all the thigs shorted by melvin capital: Bed bath and beyond for example. This was particularly helped by literally all the other hedge fund once they realised the short squeeze was going to happen anyway.
Clewza313 6y ago
Surely (almost) everybody likes it when that happens? It's hard to have a less sympathetic antagonist than a filthy-rich hedge fund like Melvin that's trying to mint even more money by crushing a company like GameStop that many people have fond memories of.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  This could literally save GameStop. They could (should?) perform a share issue, which would give them much needed capital to reduce their 485.50M debts and or allow a partial pivot (see Toys R Us's re-launch attempt pre-COVID). Regardless of short-squeeze Vs. "meme stock" this is good for GameStop if they capitalize on it.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    They did do a share issue.
    - Someone1234 6y ago
      When? They still have 69.75M outstanding shares, which you can see here isn't an increase: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GME/gamestop/shares-outstanding https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GME/gamestop/share... They certainly haven't issued anything near the current price ($200+).
      - shawabawa3 6y ago
        apparently they have pre-approval to release $200m in shares, but perhaps are waiting for after the short squeeze to issue them (take this with a grain of salt, read from a /r/wsb post)
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  The issue is Melvin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with Wall Street. How can you short a stock to the tune of 140% of all outstanding shares, enjoy a lend ratio of 23% and then bitch and moan when people buy in and cause the lend ratio to blow up to 83%?

mFixman 6y ago

Here's a thing I don't understand: will we ever leave the meme stock bubble? Most stockmarket gains have been happening with companies with no dividends and no executive control for at least a decade. Other than very few exceptions like Apple that one time large companies aren't buying back stock either. Why should the price of individual stock still have some correlation to the company's profit?

sombremesa 6y ago
This is an interesting question to ask, regardless of GME. The Robinhood app may have caused an 'eternal September' for the market. The difference is that people don't have an infinite appetite for losing money, and people are on aggregate losing money as one does when trading with a short term mindset. So I would say that we will eventually leave the meme stock bubble, but it's anyone's guess as to when.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  I think by this logic, casinos wouldn't exist.
  - SXX 6y ago
    Casinos are highly regulated business with games having constant and verified return rate. E.g if you make 1,000,000 of $1 bets on slots in registered and regulated online casino then you'll actually retain 95-98% of the money. People who are addicted to gambling and risk aren't there to bet $1 so they lose everything much faster. It's can be different for offline gambling where people go to play once in a month, but online companies related to gambling work hard to avoid burning people out too fast. After all they want sustainable income which come from audience that trust them. Stock market on ther side doesn't have anything like this and it's can make people go broke much faster than casinos do.
gegtik 6y ago
This has been the conclusion with real estate - fundamentals to outside economy has been permanently severed in many markets. Why not other assets?

shanehoban 6y ago

No it doesn't. There were more shares shorted than were available. Nothing to do with meme stocks.

rapsey 6y ago
And it could have worked if it went unnoticed by the public. It makes a perfect underdog story of the common man sticking it to a hedge fund.

JoiDegn 6y ago

This is not great coverage imo. It focuses on retail investors when arguably the big wall street guys had more of a role to play. By overshorting the stock (140% of outstanding stocks were shorted) they made themselves vulnerable to what happened afterwards. The GameStop shares had a couple of things going for it: - Ryan Cohen who previously sold Chewy.com invested heavily and joined the board - Higher than expected sales of (legacy) games on discs - Strong cash position So WallstreetBets picking up the stock does not come completely out of the blue. I would say the 'Fiasco' has as much to do with Melvin and other short sellers making mistakes as it has to do with retail investors.

lostphilosopher 6y ago
I've seen it claimed that "big Wall Street" was on both sides of this. HFT firms that pay for access to RobinHood's data joined the run on GameStop based on movement on RobinHood adding significant initial dollars to those invested by the Reddit crowd. I don't know enough about this space to know if this is true/possible and my sources so far are "randos on the internet" so I'm not investing (har har har) in the idea, but I'm curious.

boredumb 6y ago

Amazing to watch the media as a whole last night attempt to blame people on reddit and 4chan for this "fiasco" and ignoring the underlying culprits who spent BILLIONs in over shorting an equity and were caught with their pants down. How This isn't a criminal act on the part of these institutions who knowingly over leveraged themselves in hopes no one would have noticed and would have been able to make billions more off of retail investors and legitimate investors is beyond me. "That's right, it was I who committed the sleazy transactions and short armed robbery. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for these meddling kids!"

kwoff 6y ago
Louis Rossman (Apple repair guy) had a similar great take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUbJcGoYQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUbJcGoYQ4 (and followup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdpVzzXWOTA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdpVzzXWOTA )
- boredumb 6y ago
  What a time to be alive where an apple repair youtuber is more trustworthy than cable networks.

Traster 6y ago

I always find this style of reporting rather unedifying - >No one is in charge of this effort, though, of course, some voices are louder than others. There has been a history of moderators on WSB using their position to push certain agendas. I think it's more accurate to say "We don't know of any group co-ordinating this effort" - because I don't think its far fetched that there is one. All this article is really saying is "I've taken this sub-reddit at complete face value." >They’ve shown, in a sense, that if you pick the right stocks, a self-organized community of small investors can make them rise, Some users are posting investments of over $750k that are now up to $22m in value. How many people on WSB are actually investing and driving up the price? 10? 100? 1000? We have no idea. I personally find it hard to believe that 1000 redditors are investing enough to actually matter compared to the top investors who are investing hundreds of thousands.

jiofih 6y ago
There are many posts there with sizable investments, up to $1M. A few of those + thousands of smaller trades can definitely move the price. Think 50k people investing 1000 each.
- Traster 6y ago
  I'm not saying there's definitely only a handful of people actually driving the price. What I'm saying is that I don't think we have any real evidence about the number of people really involved, the level of their investment. The only evidence this article is presenting is literally just taking reddit comments at face value. This situation could likely have been created by a single ballsy hedge fund if they wanted to, with the comments on reddit being entirely fictional.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    That would be really easy to spot from the volume and order book.
vga805 6y ago
WSBs has 2 million users. What on earth makes you think 1000 redditors is hard to believe? It was likely hundreds of thousands before it went viral.

jiofih 6y ago

Can’t read. Paywall.

gegtik 6y ago
archive.is cheat code: https://archive.is/sF4Ww https://archive.is/sF4Ww

boredumb 6y ago

After a few seconds of googling past the headlines blaming some kids on reddit. "Cohen’s former hedge fund, SAC Capital, came to dominate share trading on Wall Street before it pleaded guilty to insider trading charges in 2013 and paid $1.8bn in penalties. Cohen escaped criminal indictment himself despite being the living, breathing heart of SAC Capital (its name came from his initials) and now runs a private fund with $11bn in assets." (Point72 is the fund under Cohen who contributed nearly a billion dollars to Melvin for funding of these shorts) These are people who have and are doing shady things and are getting collectively punished by people who's financial expertise stems from pepe the frog predictions moreso than the government did.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

austincheney 6y ago

On Monday I bought AMC at 4.63 on the news they avoided bankruptcy. Monday closed at a minor loss for me. Yesterday closed at 4.96 a minor profit. In premarket trading it has reached up to 17.5 and has since tumbled back to 15.

criddell 6y ago
Did you buy AMC on the advice of a meme?
- austincheney 6y ago
  Nope. I wasn't aware of the memes. I saw when GME hit $38 from $19 and thought I had already missed the bus.

kace91 6y ago

Matt Levine has been covering these news for a couple days on his column, pretty interesting stuff: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...

Xcelerate 6y ago

I've never really understand what the price of a stock actually means. My simplified understanding of the stock market is that: 1) you have a company with a good idea, but the company does not have enough money to fund the idea, so they sell shares of the company to shareholders in exchange for capital 2) using this capital, the company grows and succeeds, and in return it pays portions of its profits back to its shareholders/investors in the form of dividends. However, this all falls apart when the company never issues dividends, as many public companies have yet to ever do so. At this point, what does it matter how well the company does or what their profits are? If no dividends will ever be paid, then the stock price is irrelevant to the company as long as it issues no new shares (or if all remaining shares are held by the founder to retain majority voting rights). Whether the stock goes from $10 to $1,000 has no effect on the company, right? So what does the price mean at this point?

aphextron 6y ago
>So what does the price mean at this point? What does the price of anything mean? You can look at things like fundamentals; EPS, P/E, etc. but ultimately it just comes down to what everyone else agrees on it being worth.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  There's a difference between a stock that doesn't get you dividends and an item with a sensible expected worth. Sure, it's hard to put a concrete price on a 2x4, but you at least understand what value people see in it - the way supply and demand affect the price are reflections of the worth of lumber as a building material (or whatever else). But the price of a stock is nonsense - if you don't own enough to influence the company, and the stocks don't pay out, then the price is just money that moves in and out of your account. You can't even really say that the price of a stock is an agreement of its arbitrary value; you sell the stock because you expect it to go down, and you sell the stock to someone else who expects it to go up. If you buy a stock at the peak, you are paying the highest ever price for its lowest ever value.
  - 6y ago