3 ms·
I'm a bit surprised by the general tone in the comments here, tbh. This was, originally, not a 'pump and dump' that everyone with two working brain cells shoul
by mckirk 6y ago
I'm a bit surprised by the general tone in the comments here, tbh.
This was, originally, not a 'pump and dump' that everyone with two working brain cells should immediately have recognized as one. Buying into a pump'n'dump when it's already rising is not a smart decision -- but buying into a short squeeze of potentially HF shattering proportions, even after the underlying stock has already gone up dramatically in value, is a quite different scenario, and rationally justifiable imho.
The point where it all went wrong was probably the buying restrictions for retail customers that killed the momentum completely. Without that element, ridiculously high meme prices like $1k per share could have been realistically achievable, driven by FOMO and further fueled by Melvin-copy-cat hedge funds that might actually have been margin called at those ridiculous prices.
So, I'm a bit disheartened by the view here that 'of course it was always going to go wrong, what did they expect'.
It definitely was naive to believe everything would go 'smoothly' when billions are on the line, and markets are put under stress they might have never seen before. But the whole thing wasn't destined to fail like it did.
Looking back, I believe the only real mistake many made was not realizing the variant of the prisoner's dilemma that people were in had rapidly shifted on Thursday to favor defecting, even if just to let the dust settle and reevaluate their position. But when you're caught up in an echo chamber that still promotes 'holding' above all else, it becomes difficult to realize that, since holding would indeed have been the right decision if everybody else had done the same. In retrospect it's of course ridiculous to expect a huge group of ultimately self-interested people to coordinate on that level. Still, people held because they got caught up in the herd mentality. After that point though, it indeed turned into a serious of small pump-and-dumps that one should have better left alone.
All in all, I think people shouldn't beat themselves up too badly about what happened, because there _was_ no good template for any of this that one should have consulted.
It was at least a very interesting lesson in stock market mechanics and the kind of manipulation that people with tons of money will engage in when cornered. The decisions leading to retail being prevented from buying may or may not have been indirectly influenced by a motivation to stop the squeeze, but the 'WallstreetBets has moved on to Silver' was definitely a widespread disinformation campaign -- kinda cool to see one of those in action for once.
- aahortwwy 6y ago> The point where it all went wrong was the buying restrictions for retail customers that killed the momentum completely. In my opinion, the point where it all went wrong was when Melvin announced that they had closed their short position and the WSB hivemind decided that they were lying to the public. The conversations after that became increasingly conspiratorial and divorced from reality.
- mckirk 6y agoIndeed, that could also have been the point. Although it of course seemed quite strange at the time that they would publicly announce that they had closed their positions, unless they wanted the price to drop... heh, it was a mess. In a sense it was the perfect combination of "limited knowledge" (because only a select few had access to Short Interest estimates) and "limited understanding" (because people thought an unchanging level of Short Interest would necessarily imply that no shorts had closed their positions -- when in reality it was much more likely that new, quite reasonable shorts had instantly taken their place). Ironically though, I think there could have still been a larger squeeze simply because there still was plenty of shorted stock and people continued to buy, not understanding that their main "opponent" had already tapped out.
- LatteLazy 6y agoA short squeeze with many participants means someone will sell before the shorts are totally squeezed. So it is effectively a pump and dump.
- mckirk 6y agoHmmm, I've thought about that as well since writing my above comment. You are correct in that the scenario has many similar elements to a pump and dump, in the sense that you also had to play it smart and set your expectations realistically if you didn't want to end up losing money. Just like in a pump-and-dump, some people were always going to be bag holders with GME, namely those that misunderstood what 'short interest over 100%' meant and thought they could set their price at $42069. But I still think there was an important difference: The point at which the best move switches from cooperate to defect comes sooner in a regular PnD, because there is no 'outside money' to be gained when cooperating for long enough. So, in a PnD, you should probably sell as soon as the momentum has really picked up, whereas in this case, the momentum actually increased the chance of cooperating being a successful strategy -- up to a point that would have had to be determined.