3 ms·

Shorting more than 100% of the stock is excessive and irresponsible. That figure is not a conspiracy theory: it is public information that the SEC releases mont

Shorting more than 100% of the stock is excessive and irresponsible. That figure is not a conspiracy theory: it is public information that the SEC releases monthly. Whether hedge fund managers did make a call to their buddies is not the only thing in question here (although the SEC will surely determine the truth). Shorting a stock drives the price down and, while this is no less legal than buying a stock, the question is whether shorting 136% of the stock counts as outright manipulation. Reddit kids have done nothing but pop an artificial bubble, they did not participate in manipulation; as the hedge fund managers and their buddies claim. > QAnon I have yet to see the baby cookbook or other evidence of their ridiculous claims.

esoterica 6y ago
The parent commenter claimed that brokerages were colluding to drive the price of GME down to benefits the shorts. That is QAnon-level evidence-free conspiracy theorizing. The clearing houses were demanding more collateral and brokerages couldn't afford or didn't want to put it up. > whether shorting 136% of the stock counts as outright manipulation I refer you to the snarky top comment about how all the Dunning-Kruger victims who claim manipulation do not actually know what manipulation is. Shorting a stock is not manipulation and neither is lots of people deciding to short a stock. 136% of the stock is shorted because a lot of people were shorting it, not because Some Guy decided to single-handedly short 136% of the float. > Reddit kids have done nothing but pop an artificial bubble So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at $500? Really?
- zamalek 6y ago
  > So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at $500? Really? Did I claim that? I wouldn't touch GME with a barge pole.
- beagle3 6y ago
  IB claimed to have hiked margin to 100% which is a reasonable response. However, I have heard from many sources that they in fact rejected buy orders even with cash - which, if true, and I have every reason to believe so, makes any explanation about margins and technical reasons seem ridiculous. There is surely some deeper non public reason that every single retail broker - but no single institutional broker - stopped accepting GME buys but kept honoring sells. It might or might not be a call from hedge fund buddies, but it is still likely illegal. When I was working at a hedge fund, I once executed a few hundred mil notional on a supposedly anonymous exchange, taking advantage of an obvious counterparty mistake. Within 10 minutes, I got a call from said counterparty, telling me that next time I do that, they’ll make sure I’m kicked off the exchange. Anonymous my ass. Legal my ass. And yet, it happened - I’m sure I wasn’t the first or the last - the other side kept making those mistakes. I stopped taking advantage of them. This kind of behavior is rampant in Wall Street. Only difference is it has been done now in the open, very visibly, and with thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - identifiable victims.

esoterica 6y ago

The parent commenter claimed that brokerages were colluding to drive the price of GME down to benefits the shorts. That is QAnon-level evidence-free conspiracy theorizing. The clearing houses were demanding more collateral and brokerages couldn't afford or didn't want to put it up. > whether shorting 136% of the stock counts as outright manipulation I refer you to the snarky top comment about how all the Dunning-Kruger victims who claim manipulation do not actually know what manipulation is. Shorting a stock is not manipulation and neither is lots of people deciding to short a stock. 136% of the stock is shorted because a lot of people were shorting it, not because Some Guy decided to single-handedly short 136% of the float. > Reddit kids have done nothing but pop an artificial bubble So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at $500? Really?

zamalek 6y ago
> So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at $500? Really? Did I claim that? I wouldn't touch GME with a barge pole.
beagle3 6y ago
IB claimed to have hiked margin to 100% which is a reasonable response. However, I have heard from many sources that they in fact rejected buy orders even with cash - which, if true, and I have every reason to believe so, makes any explanation about margins and technical reasons seem ridiculous. There is surely some deeper non public reason that every single retail broker - but no single institutional broker - stopped accepting GME buys but kept honoring sells. It might or might not be a call from hedge fund buddies, but it is still likely illegal. When I was working at a hedge fund, I once executed a few hundred mil notional on a supposedly anonymous exchange, taking advantage of an obvious counterparty mistake. Within 10 minutes, I got a call from said counterparty, telling me that next time I do that, they’ll make sure I’m kicked off the exchange. Anonymous my ass. Legal my ass. And yet, it happened - I’m sure I wasn’t the first or the last - the other side kept making those mistakes. I stopped taking advantage of them. This kind of behavior is rampant in Wall Street. Only difference is it has been done now in the open, very visibly, and with thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - identifiable victims.