5 ms·

Of course it looks strange -- the stock price reflects a short squeeze on naked shorts, not value or growth.

by david927 5y ago

ant6n 5y ago
I thought the short squeeze was in jan/feb, what’s that late spring jump?
- ganoushoreilly 5y ago
  > https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx The thesis that appears to be correct with AMC and GME is that the shorts never really covered, they simply kicked the can through some creative vehicles.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    How do we know that? Is it possible that substantially all the active funds with a thesis on AMC/GME got out, so now the price is driven by retail meme buyers who have no price target?
    - Traster 5y ago
      Honestly, I feel that we're way past the point of productively engaging with the wallstreetbets crowd, the "Naked short squeeze" eternal narative is about as substantial as the people claiming Trump will be inaugurated again later this year. There's no evidence threshold that can be met - on an infinite timeline, the fact that these hedge funds haven't lost money is just more evidence of dirty tricks rather than the most likely scenario - they dumped the stock long ago, and either have a strategy to get back in or have a strategy to avoid being burned again.
      - david927 5y ago
        Honestly, no one is asking you. They've done the DD. They like the stock. They're going to hold. I see a lot of people kicking and screaming. I have no stake in this but I'm enjoying it all the same.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    20% of the AMC float is short, and could cover in less than 2 days. 25% of the GME float is sold short, but it would take a bit longer for shorts to cover, looks like 5-7 days based on avg 10d volume. The thesis you posted is Wrong.
jjcon 5y ago
> short squeeze on naked shorts Trading is getting really graphic these days
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Those terms are decades old. "short squeeze" (1960s or earlier): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cshort%20squeeze%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&... "naked shorts" (1970s): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naked+shorts&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnaked%20shorts%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cnaked%20shorts%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naked+shorts&y...

Of course it looks strange -- the stock price reflects a short squeeze on naked shorts, not value or growth.

ant6n 5y ago

I thought the short squeeze was in jan/feb, what’s that late spring jump?

ganoushoreilly 5y ago
> https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx The thesis that appears to be correct with AMC and GME is that the shorts never really covered, they simply kicked the can through some creative vehicles.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  How do we know that? Is it possible that substantially all the active funds with a thesis on AMC/GME got out, so now the price is driven by retail meme buyers who have no price target?
  - Traster 5y ago
    Honestly, I feel that we're way past the point of productively engaging with the wallstreetbets crowd, the "Naked short squeeze" eternal narative is about as substantial as the people claiming Trump will be inaugurated again later this year. There's no evidence threshold that can be met - on an infinite timeline, the fact that these hedge funds haven't lost money is just more evidence of dirty tricks rather than the most likely scenario - they dumped the stock long ago, and either have a strategy to get back in or have a strategy to avoid being burned again.
    - david927 5y ago
      Honestly, no one is asking you. They've done the DD. They like the stock. They're going to hold. I see a lot of people kicking and screaming. I have no stake in this but I'm enjoying it all the same.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  20% of the AMC float is short, and could cover in less than 2 days. 25% of the GME float is sold short, but it would take a bit longer for shorts to cover, looks like 5-7 days based on avg 10d volume. The thesis you posted is Wrong.

jjcon 5y ago

> short squeeze on naked shorts Trading is getting really graphic these days

dredmorbius 5y ago
Those terms are decades old. "short squeeze" (1960s or earlier): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cshort%20squeeze%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&... "naked shorts" (1970s): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naked+shorts&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnaked%20shorts%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cnaked%20shorts%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naked+shorts&y...