4 ms·

I’m sorry but you have written several blowhard comments along these lines and it’s just wrong. There is no such thing as “creating” a short squeeze. There is j

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I’m sorry but you have written several blowhard comments along these lines and it’s just wrong. There is no such thing as “creating” a short squeeze. There is just a buying strategy based on hard work of appraising the fundamentals and speculating correctly, and you are perfectly free to tell others you plan to do that and coordinate with them. Calling anything the retail / WSB investor crowd did in this scenario “manipulation” is ridiculous and insulting. “Coordinating” by explaining a strategy and inviting others to participate is not “manipulation.”

elliekelly 6y ago
Well I'm a securities lawyers soooo I kind of know a thing or two about this stuff. I stand by everything I've said. If that makes a stranger on the internet think I'm a "blowhard", so be it. Apologies if reality hurts your feelings. Nothing I've said is wrong. Many things you've said are, though. Oh, and you might want to google Phil Falcone.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  If true, I’m quite shocked just based on the bald-faced, zeroth order flagrant incorrectness of things you wrote in other comments about it. I worked as a fund manager at an asset management firm for a few years, often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues. Nothing you have said about this, including the totally off the wall comparison with Phil Falcone, causes me to believe your take is trustworthy here. I’m not a lawyer, but just because you allegedly are one doesn’t mean I’m going to take your opinion on this at face value.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    Prepare to be quite shocked, bud. I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong. Since your comments are full of angry rhetoric and lacking in substance it seems that you strongly dislike what I've said which is actually very different from what I've said being "flagrantly incorrect". Classic mixup. > often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues I think you think this somehow bolsters your (again, completely emotional) argument? On the contrary, this is a pretty good indicator you don't understand federal securities laws. And I must say, I concur with your former GC's assessment.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      > “I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong.” I don’t know why you’re waiting on that. It’s absolutely not my job to go item by item through the comments and chronicle it for you, that’s on you if you care (or don’t, I don’t care, and I won’t be baited further). I just felt somebody needed to mention that they don’t take what you’re saying as accurate or trustworthy.
      - nrmitchi 6y ago
        If you are making a claim that everything someone is saying is wrong, you should will be willing to state what you think they are actually wrong about, and why. No one is asking you to "go line by line", but right now you're just yelling "YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT" without even specifying what you're talking about.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, one does not have to respond to “citation-needed” requests for bolstering arguments. Others are perfectly free to discredit me for that, ignore what I am saying, that is fine, but nobody is “required” and nobody “should” engage with that in every case. In this particular case I think the arguments have been repeated many times across all the different GME threads. My goal is not to repeat them here, only to register dissent, which is a perfectly valid goal for me to have.
nrmitchi 6y ago
> buying strategy based on hard work of appraising the fundamentals and speculating correctly I'm sorry are you trying to make an argument that GME right now is based on evaluating the fundamentals?!? > “Coordinating” by explaining a strategy and inviting others to participate is not “manipulation.” Frankly, you're kind of right, if the premises of those strategies are valid, and are not "If we manipulate the value high enough", then it is not illegal market manipulation. If the premise of your strategy is "manipulating the price of availability", then yes, it is. If the strategy is just blatantly factually wrong or fraudulent, then yes, it is.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  > “ I'm sorry are you trying to make an argument that GME right now is based on evaluating the fundamentals?!?” I’m saying the author of the article (the reddit post) approached valuing it based on fundamentals. That is the whole point of a short equity squeeze - a stock’s valuation is predicted by many (wrong folks) to fall, institutional money takes a large short position, but a few smart speculators see a valuation-based reason why the price will actually (truly, not artificially) go up, thus squeezing the short sellers. The strategy kicks in only at that point, when buying and holding (based on speculating more intelligently about the true valuation) leads to further gains because of the short sellers’ situation. The reddit author even says explicitly - this is not a pump and dump, the stock will stay high. Sharing a smart analysis and offering others the chance to execute the same strategy is not manipulation. It’s just a smart strategy. This guy and others who saw the opportunity early, realized GME was both fundamentally undervalued and also had super high short interest, just out-smarted professional traders and they are mad, so resorting to backchannel politics to drum up claims of “manipulation.”
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    > The reddit author even says explicitly - this is not a pump and dump, the stock will stay high. Oh well I mean if the reddit author said it.... If you're arguing that it will stay high, you're saying that based on the fundamentals of the company GameStop should be a $20B company. Which is bonkers.

elliekelly 6y ago

Well I'm a securities lawyers soooo I kind of know a thing or two about this stuff. I stand by everything I've said. If that makes a stranger on the internet think I'm a "blowhard", so be it. Apologies if reality hurts your feelings. Nothing I've said is wrong. Many things you've said are, though. Oh, and you might want to google Phil Falcone.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
If true, I’m quite shocked just based on the bald-faced, zeroth order flagrant incorrectness of things you wrote in other comments about it. I worked as a fund manager at an asset management firm for a few years, often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues. Nothing you have said about this, including the totally off the wall comparison with Phil Falcone, causes me to believe your take is trustworthy here. I’m not a lawyer, but just because you allegedly are one doesn’t mean I’m going to take your opinion on this at face value.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Prepare to be quite shocked, bud. I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong. Since your comments are full of angry rhetoric and lacking in substance it seems that you strongly dislike what I've said which is actually very different from what I've said being "flagrantly incorrect". Classic mixup. > often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues I think you think this somehow bolsters your (again, completely emotional) argument? On the contrary, this is a pretty good indicator you don't understand federal securities laws. And I must say, I concur with your former GC's assessment.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    > “I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong.” I don’t know why you’re waiting on that. It’s absolutely not my job to go item by item through the comments and chronicle it for you, that’s on you if you care (or don’t, I don’t care, and I won’t be baited further). I just felt somebody needed to mention that they don’t take what you’re saying as accurate or trustworthy.
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      If you are making a claim that everything someone is saying is wrong, you should will be willing to state what you think they are actually wrong about, and why. No one is asking you to "go line by line", but right now you're just yelling "YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT" without even specifying what you're talking about.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, one does not have to respond to “citation-needed” requests for bolstering arguments. Others are perfectly free to discredit me for that, ignore what I am saying, that is fine, but nobody is “required” and nobody “should” engage with that in every case. In this particular case I think the arguments have been repeated many times across all the different GME threads. My goal is not to repeat them here, only to register dissent, which is a perfectly valid goal for me to have.

nrmitchi 6y ago

> buying strategy based on hard work of appraising the fundamentals and speculating correctly I'm sorry are you trying to make an argument that GME right now is based on evaluating the fundamentals?!? > “Coordinating” by explaining a strategy and inviting others to participate is not “manipulation.” Frankly, you're kind of right, if the premises of those strategies are valid, and are not "If we manipulate the value high enough", then it is not illegal market manipulation. If the premise of your strategy is "manipulating the price of availability", then yes, it is. If the strategy is just blatantly factually wrong or fraudulent, then yes, it is.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ I'm sorry are you trying to make an argument that GME right now is based on evaluating the fundamentals?!?” I’m saying the author of the article (the reddit post) approached valuing it based on fundamentals. That is the whole point of a short equity squeeze - a stock’s valuation is predicted by many (wrong folks) to fall, institutional money takes a large short position, but a few smart speculators see a valuation-based reason why the price will actually (truly, not artificially) go up, thus squeezing the short sellers. The strategy kicks in only at that point, when buying and holding (based on speculating more intelligently about the true valuation) leads to further gains because of the short sellers’ situation. The reddit author even says explicitly - this is not a pump and dump, the stock will stay high. Sharing a smart analysis and offering others the chance to execute the same strategy is not manipulation. It’s just a smart strategy. This guy and others who saw the opportunity early, realized GME was both fundamentally undervalued and also had super high short interest, just out-smarted professional traders and they are mad, so resorting to backchannel politics to drum up claims of “manipulation.”
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > The reddit author even says explicitly - this is not a pump and dump, the stock will stay high. Oh well I mean if the reddit author said it.... If you're arguing that it will stay high, you're saying that based on the fundamentals of the company GameStop should be a $20B company. Which is bonkers.