5 ms·

First, WSB people are aware that the short squeeze hasn't happened yet, since short interest remains very high. Second, the WSB consensus is starting to build

by ummonk 6y ago

First, WSB people are aware that the short squeeze hasn't happened yet, since short interest remains very high. Second, the WSB consensus is starting to build around sacrificially holding stocks through the short squeeze and subsequent decline to ensure bandwagoning retail investors are able to get back out and extract the profits from short sellers covering.

tom_mellior 6y ago
> short interest remains very high Of course it does, since the stock is ridiculously overvalued. What does the WSB crystal ball have to say about when the squeeze will happen? How would we be able to tell when it has happened? > sacrificially holding stocks through the short squeeze and subsequent decline This is a noble goal. It will be interesting to see if it works out, tragedy of the commons and all. If everyone else holds, nobody will mind if I sell my shares, I do so need that Ferrari...
- ratsmack 6y ago
  > ... overvalued ... This really has nothing to do with it.
- ummonk 6y ago
  No one knows when or even if the squeeze will happen. It was on the verge of happening on Thursday when the DTCC raised the collateral requirements to stop retail investors from buying more shares. Now everyone is guessing it will probably happen some time next week. The signs should be pretty clear - there will be a rapid spike in the price as the squeeze snowballs.
  - tom_mellior 6y ago
    > No one knows when or even if the squeeze will happen. Well. $GME closed at -100 dollars (-31%) yesterday, and it's currently down another ~95 dollars from that in the pre-market. I guess we will not go to space today.
monopoledance 6y ago
> Second, the WSB consensus is starting to build around sacrificially holding stocks through the short squeeze and subsequent decline to ensure bandwagoning retail investors are able to get back out and extract the profits from short sellers covering. I believe it when I see it. Isn't the majority of shares hold by the heavy pros anyway? I doubt the other Hedgefonds and Yolon Musks will sacrifice shit.
- omarchowdhury 6y ago
  > I believe it when I see it. Isn't the majority of shares hold by the heavy pros anyway? I doubt the other Hedgefonds and Yolon Musks will sacrifice shit. They don't need to. It's mathematically impossible for shorts to cover, because they've shorted more than the entire float.
  - monopoledance 6y ago
    I don't think that's how this works. They "just" need to pay twice for it. The over 100% borrows happen like this: Alice owns one GME. Bob borrows the share and sells it to John. John doesn't know this is borrowed stock and borrows it to Lisa. This way way you got two borrows on one stock. As you can see, the hedgefonds likely already recovered some stocks from 140% down to 113%. Their intention was to speculate on Gamespots bankruptcy and there for not even have to buy back any shares. That's why they overshot like this and also why they are human scum needing to bleed for their sins. I honestly don't know what it means for the short squeeze, if they reach <100%. I assume at that point it becomes less of an we against them, and increasingly more of an everyone against everyone, again.
    - omarchowdhury 6y ago
      Thanks for the explanation. Yes, they would need to pay more than once for it. In any scenario, the demand would outstrip the supply and hence there is still a short squeeze on the table.
    - nowherebeen 6y ago
      > if they reach <100%. I assume at that point it becomes less of an we against them In order to cover their short, they actually need to buy shares with willing sellers. So it wouldn't be a case of everyone against everyone. The amount of holders will decrease proportional to the short percentage. They just need to make sure they aren't buying while the sellers are decreasing their exposure. But that's quite easy to tell as the price would shoot sky high from all the short sellers buying.
babyshake 6y ago
Isn't creating the appearance of this kind of consensus exactly what would happen at a pump and dump scheme at the height of the pump? First it is hold the line. Then it is buy the dip. Then everyone moves onto something else while a few decide that they are now long-term investors, or weren't in it for the money after all.
- ratsmack 6y ago
  >Isn't creating the appearance of this kind of consensus exactly what would happen at a pump and dump scheme at the height of the pump? This is fully in the open and all information is public. Pump and dump schemes are usually the reverse of this.
  - PoignardAzur 6y ago
    I don't understand. What evidence do you have that "all" information is public? If shady people did manipulate WSB into a frenzy to create a bubble, you'd expect them to create the appearance of a public process, wouldn't you?
- ummonk 6y ago
  Sure. But it’s rather believable from a community that for years had made a hobby of losing money in ingenious ways.

by ummonk 6y ago

tom_mellior 6y ago

> short interest remains very high Of course it does, since the stock is ridiculously overvalued. What does the WSB crystal ball have to say about when the squeeze will happen? How would we be able to tell when it has happened? > sacrificially holding stocks through the short squeeze and subsequent decline This is a noble goal. It will be interesting to see if it works out, tragedy of the commons and all. If everyone else holds, nobody will mind if I sell my shares, I do so need that Ferrari...

ratsmack 6y ago
> ... overvalued ... This really has nothing to do with it.
ummonk 6y ago
No one knows when or even if the squeeze will happen. It was on the verge of happening on Thursday when the DTCC raised the collateral requirements to stop retail investors from buying more shares. Now everyone is guessing it will probably happen some time next week. The signs should be pretty clear - there will be a rapid spike in the price as the squeeze snowballs.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > No one knows when or even if the squeeze will happen. Well. $GME closed at -100 dollars (-31%) yesterday, and it's currently down another ~95 dollars from that in the pre-market. I guess we will not go to space today.

monopoledance 6y ago

> Second, the WSB consensus is starting to build around sacrificially holding stocks through the short squeeze and subsequent decline to ensure bandwagoning retail investors are able to get back out and extract the profits from short sellers covering. I believe it when I see it. Isn't the majority of shares hold by the heavy pros anyway? I doubt the other Hedgefonds and Yolon Musks will sacrifice shit.

omarchowdhury 6y ago
> I believe it when I see it. Isn't the majority of shares hold by the heavy pros anyway? I doubt the other Hedgefonds and Yolon Musks will sacrifice shit. They don't need to. It's mathematically impossible for shorts to cover, because they've shorted more than the entire float.
- monopoledance 6y ago
  I don't think that's how this works. They "just" need to pay twice for it. The over 100% borrows happen like this: Alice owns one GME. Bob borrows the share and sells it to John. John doesn't know this is borrowed stock and borrows it to Lisa. This way way you got two borrows on one stock. As you can see, the hedgefonds likely already recovered some stocks from 140% down to 113%. Their intention was to speculate on Gamespots bankruptcy and there for not even have to buy back any shares. That's why they overshot like this and also why they are human scum needing to bleed for their sins. I honestly don't know what it means for the short squeeze, if they reach <100%. I assume at that point it becomes less of an we against them, and increasingly more of an everyone against everyone, again.
  - omarchowdhury 6y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. Yes, they would need to pay more than once for it. In any scenario, the demand would outstrip the supply and hence there is still a short squeeze on the table.
  - nowherebeen 6y ago
    > if they reach <100%. I assume at that point it becomes less of an we against them In order to cover their short, they actually need to buy shares with willing sellers. So it wouldn't be a case of everyone against everyone. The amount of holders will decrease proportional to the short percentage. They just need to make sure they aren't buying while the sellers are decreasing their exposure. But that's quite easy to tell as the price would shoot sky high from all the short sellers buying.

babyshake 6y ago

Isn't creating the appearance of this kind of consensus exactly what would happen at a pump and dump scheme at the height of the pump? First it is hold the line. Then it is buy the dip. Then everyone moves onto something else while a few decide that they are now long-term investors, or weren't in it for the money after all.

ratsmack 6y ago
>Isn't creating the appearance of this kind of consensus exactly what would happen at a pump and dump scheme at the height of the pump? This is fully in the open and all information is public. Pump and dump schemes are usually the reverse of this.
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  I don't understand. What evidence do you have that "all" information is public? If shady people did manipulate WSB into a frenzy to create a bubble, you'd expect them to create the appearance of a public process, wouldn't you?
ummonk 6y ago
Sure. But it’s rather believable from a community that for years had made a hobby of losing money in ingenious ways.