4 ms·
Because there were no offenders. DTCC raising collateral requirements on an ultravoltile stock with a high chance of price collapse is just... a reasonable thin
by ivalm 6y ago
Because there were no offenders. DTCC raising collateral requirements on an ultravoltile stock with a high chance of price collapse is just... a reasonable thing to do?
- emteycz 6y agoSure, no problems with that. It would be reasonable to say that in advance and not lie about it.
- chrisco255 6y agoDo they have a prepublished volatility-collateral chart that applies for this and all similar scenarios or was this an adhoc rule change made arbitrarily this one time? Can you show another volatile time where similar action was taken?
- ummonk 6y agoIt was an arbitrary decision. And one which they neglected to notify the general public of.
- TameAntelope 6y agoHeh, that's a lot of work you're asking a stranger to do for you...
- emteycz 6y agoThere's no work to be done, the answer is no.
- ivalm 6y agoCan you point to a GME like price action of a non-penny stock ticker? Of course we both know the answer is no. Things shot up, things shot down, of course people who bought the hype lost money. There is nothing surprising here.
- emteycz 6y agoEvidently you don't know what you're talking about - of course I can. $VW 2008, $ACB 2019, $TLRY 2018 to name a few. There is much more, simply go through tickers on D1 chart and you'll see.
- bsanr2 6y agoMy first contact with the stock market was learning about some stock that had ballooned 1200% and crashed the next day. This was in 1999 or 2000.
- ivalm 6y agoGME went up more than %10000 (100x) in 5 months. The geometric difference between GME and some 10x stock is the same as difference between 10x and no growth.
- bsanr2 6y agoWeekly moves. GME, VW, and the one I'm talking about are all comparable in that sense.
- ivalm 6y agoNo, you’re wrong even in this narrow sense. GME had a weekly move from $61 to $483, or 8x. $VW went $201 to $1005 (actually split over two trading weeks, in a single trading week it was $324 to $1005). So between 3 and 5x. The weed stocks are even less. But the thing is what makes GME an especially big risk is not any weekly move, it is the repeated weekly moves. It is the 100x growth in a stock that has essentially no chance of justifying its valuation. This was not the case with your other examples.
- bsanr2 6y agoA great deal of GME's move before last month was fighting back against a short attack that had artificially pushed the price down. $5 was not the natural price. $5 was the price as hedge funds attempted to drive Gamestop out of business, in the midst of the COVID crash. I would accept $20, which was what the stock price climbed to before a positive earnings report and moves to restructure increased positive sentiment. The squeeze we saw was, then, 10x at best. This is in line with the 12x I mentioned earlier. VW was less, but had started at a higher point and moved similarly to GME over several months before the major event. The 28th WAS that event for GME, but it was cut off. It's impossible to say how the differing circumstances between GME and VW's squeeze would have changed the magnitude of its peak, but they're similar enough that we could expect similar movement from $300-$400 to the actual peak if major retail brokerages hadn't prevented traders from opening positions. Go look at a chart of those two weeks. GME's looks similar to VW's, except there's a massive hole on the 28th. When buying resumed (however limited) the price shot back up to match sentiment, above $300, and then mirrored the trend over the following days. That hole is where the squeeze would have been. Finally, the valuation during action like this is not based on the company's fundamentals but on the magnitude of the bets placed against it. Shorts piled on at extremely low price levels; the more the market decided they were wrong, the more they lost, theoretically without limit.