6 ms·

I check the GameStop subreddits every once in a while out of morbid curiosity. The content has become a cross between pump spam and conspiracy theories. It’s ha

I check the GameStop subreddits every once in a while out of morbid curiosity. The content has become a cross between pump spam and conspiracy theories. It’s hard to tell, but I think the masses of GameStop believers aren’t even interested in the dump portion of the pump-and-dump scheme because all of the smart money exited the trade a while ago. Everyone left is convinced that they’re either performing some sort of activism and/or about to become unbelievably wealthy when their conspiracy theories come true and the stock price is forced into the millions. The “mother of all short squeezes” theory has been debunked over and over again, but the initial price action due to the media frenzy has convinced a lot of people that there’s something else going on. Any information that contradicts the theory is not welcome in their Reddit bubbles, but any “DD” that supports the theory is upvoted rapidly. It was interesting to watch at first, but it’s becoming increasingly depressing as it becomes clear how many people have put too much of their own money into this pump scheme turned conspiracy theory.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
The people still holding AMC are even more deluded given that AMC has already bought back stock multiple times, making plenty of money on the suckers still hanging on.
- zerocrates 5y ago
  You mean they issued stock several times, right? Buybacks would be basically the opposite. AMC generated a bunch of cash and shed a bunch of debt off their temporary high valuation... good for them I say.
jdjslskshdj 5y ago
Yeah, no kidding, and I'm surprised I haven't seen them talked about much on the internet...for a complete outsider, they're completely insane and nonsensical. And for somebody that kind of knows the history of the subreddits, it's a super interesting study on how being financially invested in something can totally warp your beliefs and thinking.
rockshassa 5y ago
I've followed the gme saga off and on for the past few months, I've never once seen the theory debunked. If this is actually the case, could you post a link to it?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chrononaut 5y ago
  Another comment cited an SEC report that concluded that most of the price movement wasn't related to shorts being closed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30177747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30177747 Admittedly I am not sure that's directly related to the theory being referenced by you and OP as I am hazy on all the historical discussions.
- bikingbismuth 5y ago
  As far as I understand it, the core aspect of an impending “MOASS” is that GME stock is still shorted > 100%, but SI is currently reported at around 15%[0]. [0]https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/GME/short-interest/ https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/GME/short-interest/
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    In other words, the canonical measure that represents the ratio of uncovered shorts to the float is ... wrong? There are people who are short, but are not short?
    - magic123_ 5y ago
      From what I got, the majority of the actual short would be hidden in some method of put-call options shenanigans (not sure what it is now, but there was at some point the equivalent of 2 times the float in $<2 puts a year out)
- jstx1 5y ago
  Look into falsifiability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsi... tldr - It's possible to say a lot of rubbish that can't be directly disproven. It's actually one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theories.
Graffur 5y ago
If the theory is debunked, does that mean DFV basically lost a lot of people a lot of money based on false assumptions?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  No, those people lost their own money, since every third word out of DFV (and everyone even remotely reasonable on that site) is that what they're providing is not financial advice. That's not just boilerplate, it's also 1000% true. If you lose money because you listened to them, the only person you can blame is yourself.
  - Graffur 5y ago
    That's like Elon tweeting about Dogecoin and then saying NOT to take his advice. Lol the meme "this is not financial advice" does not follow logic when you create a momentum, get yourself a platform and then essentially trick people. I am NOT saying that is what DFV did though
pknight 5y ago
> The “mother of all short squeezes” theory has been debunked over and over again Could you post a link to a good piece that debunks?
- bigram 5y ago
  The SEC report confirms that shorts closed their positions and short interest dropped significantly over a year ago, and it has remained low since. You can't have a short squeeze without significant short interest.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ricardonunez 5y ago
    There's nothing on the SEC that says that. If fact, the SEC says the price movement was about retail and FOMO than shorts closing their position.
    - bigram 5y ago
      Read Section 3.4 "Short Selling and Covering Short Positions". It describes the short covering that took place. Look at the chart of short interest on page 27. It shows the short interest dropping precipitously, meaning the majority of short positions were closed. It is honestly baffling how many GME conspiracists are apparently illiterate and unable to understand that "X didn't have as much of an effect as Y" doesn't mean "X did not happen". Especially when it is surrounded by multiple paragraphs explicitly talking about the X that was happening.
      - ricardonunez 5y ago
        Look at XRT short interest. There's plenty of information explaining the situation. If you look at the recent votes by the SEC. GG wanted to make better short reporting since that is a big issue. In multiple occasions hedge funds and banks mark their short position long and then get a small fine years later. Note: I was never a member of WSB. I have researched GME years before this whole saga and hold a position in my portfolio because I saw the value in the turnaround prior to the squeeze saga. That said, as an investor the mechanics of the market need to change.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

The people still holding AMC are even more deluded given that AMC has already bought back stock multiple times, making plenty of money on the suckers still hanging on.

zerocrates 5y ago
You mean they issued stock several times, right? Buybacks would be basically the opposite. AMC generated a bunch of cash and shed a bunch of debt off their temporary high valuation... good for them I say.

jdjslskshdj 5y ago

Yeah, no kidding, and I'm surprised I haven't seen them talked about much on the internet...for a complete outsider, they're completely insane and nonsensical. And for somebody that kind of knows the history of the subreddits, it's a super interesting study on how being financially invested in something can totally warp your beliefs and thinking.

rockshassa 5y ago

I've followed the gme saga off and on for the past few months, I've never once seen the theory debunked. If this is actually the case, could you post a link to it?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrononaut 5y ago
Another comment cited an SEC report that concluded that most of the price movement wasn't related to shorts being closed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30177747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30177747 Admittedly I am not sure that's directly related to the theory being referenced by you and OP as I am hazy on all the historical discussions.
bikingbismuth 5y ago
As far as I understand it, the core aspect of an impending “MOASS” is that GME stock is still shorted > 100%, but SI is currently reported at around 15%[0]. [0]https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/GME/short-interest/ https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/GME/short-interest/
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  In other words, the canonical measure that represents the ratio of uncovered shorts to the float is ... wrong? There are people who are short, but are not short?
  - magic123_ 5y ago
    From what I got, the majority of the actual short would be hidden in some method of put-call options shenanigans (not sure what it is now, but there was at some point the equivalent of 2 times the float in $<2 puts a year out)
jstx1 5y ago
Look into falsifiability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsi... tldr - It's possible to say a lot of rubbish that can't be directly disproven. It's actually one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theories.

Graffur 5y ago

If the theory is debunked, does that mean DFV basically lost a lot of people a lot of money based on false assumptions?

TameAntelope 5y ago
No, those people lost their own money, since every third word out of DFV (and everyone even remotely reasonable on that site) is that what they're providing is not financial advice. That's not just boilerplate, it's also 1000% true. If you lose money because you listened to them, the only person you can blame is yourself.
- Graffur 5y ago
  That's like Elon tweeting about Dogecoin and then saying NOT to take his advice. Lol the meme "this is not financial advice" does not follow logic when you create a momentum, get yourself a platform and then essentially trick people. I am NOT saying that is what DFV did though

pknight 5y ago

> The “mother of all short squeezes” theory has been debunked over and over again Could you post a link to a good piece that debunks?

bigram 5y ago
The SEC report confirms that shorts closed their positions and short interest dropped significantly over a year ago, and it has remained low since. You can't have a short squeeze without significant short interest.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ricardonunez 5y ago
  There's nothing on the SEC that says that. If fact, the SEC says the price movement was about retail and FOMO than shorts closing their position.
  - bigram 5y ago
    Read Section 3.4 "Short Selling and Covering Short Positions". It describes the short covering that took place. Look at the chart of short interest on page 27. It shows the short interest dropping precipitously, meaning the majority of short positions were closed. It is honestly baffling how many GME conspiracists are apparently illiterate and unable to understand that "X didn't have as much of an effect as Y" doesn't mean "X did not happen". Especially when it is surrounded by multiple paragraphs explicitly talking about the X that was happening.
    - ricardonunez 5y ago
      Look at XRT short interest. There's plenty of information explaining the situation. If you look at the recent votes by the SEC. GG wanted to make better short reporting since that is a big issue. In multiple occasions hedge funds and banks mark their short position long and then get a small fine years later. Note: I was never a member of WSB. I have researched GME years before this whole saga and hold a position in my portfolio because I saw the value in the turnaround prior to the squeeze saga. That said, as an investor the mechanics of the market need to change.