4 ms·

Its easily dismissed as conspiracy but having read many of their supporting arguments and seeing the SI (Short Interest) being over 220% myself along with the S

Its easily dismissed as conspiracy but having read many of their supporting arguments and seeing the SI (Short Interest) being over 220% myself along with the SEC report suggesting that shorts never closed their position... I can't say I would dismiss the possibility of another short squeeze...

goldnugget92 5y ago
[dead]
- shlant 5y ago
  wow I had no idea how much time has been dumped into propping up this conspiracy theory. People have a lot of time on their hands (but I guess rationalizing ones own investments is good motivation)
carnitine 5y ago
Why do you think not a single institutional investor has rallied behind this cause? Hedge funds love fucking each other over and would embrace popularity with the public. Why hasn’t some firm with a few billion under management taken up this cause if there’s really anything there?
- goldnugget92 5y ago
  They have? Blackrock just added 10% to their stake recently. Not to mention the former-Amazon staff that GameStop is hiring along with the header of BlockChain at Microsoft mentioning working with GameStop on their new NFT Market Place. Don't just get your news from Bloomberg or CNN.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    Blackrock and Vanguard own GME because they operate the biggest S&P ETFs and mutual funds. GME has increased its percentage of the S&P because retail investors have bought the position. Blackrock is not taking a position that a short squeeze is possible they are just reacting to the index.
    - odonnellryan 5y ago
      GME isn't in the SPX
      - kasey_junk 5y ago
        They are in sp400 which also makes them a constituent of sp1000. Further they are in sptmi which massive etfs like vanguards vti & blackrocks itot are benchmarked against st.
        odonnellryan 5y ago
        Ah sorry - for some reason I thought you said SP500. Should not comment before coffee :(
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    is this related to Microsoft shutting down Azure Blockchain due to lack of interest?
- simpleguitar 5y ago
  Because that would be illegal market manipulation. Any institute, including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze. The SEC rules on this is quite clear. What's interesting to me is that the official SEC report on GameStop "squeeze" specifically called out that the rise in price WAS NOT due to short covering, but rather a large increase in retail buying and market makers balancing options. So the reported % short went from more than 100% to less than %20 with zero short covering and prices falling? Yeah, sure.
  - danuker 5y ago
    How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others. Is there any law or ruling you can point out to?
    - capableweb 5y ago
      > How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others. I don't think (but someone correct me as I'm no professional) the occurrence of short squeezes are illegal, unless there is a knowing collusion behind it (check previous cases from courts regarding collusion to trigger short squeezes). What is illegal is naked shorting (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regsho.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regsho.asp) which could be a trigger/condition to future squeezes..
      - pkhamre 5y ago
        Side note; The CEO of Aterian ($ATER) has tweeted about preliminary data of naked shorts and that they hired a third party company to fight this. https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1455515851541598208 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1455515851541598208 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1448716392656670722 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1448716392656670722
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze Issuers have precedent for issuing shares into shorts [1][2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30iht-norris31.1.17372644.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-03/amc-has-a-bit-more-stock-to-sell https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-03/amc-ha...
xenadu02 5y ago
A bunch of shorts 100% closed their positions. That was the original smaller push that made the stock take off. The rest of it was momentum from retail investors, algorithms, etc. There was never going to be a flag day though... shorts cover over time as their bet looks less likely to payoff. By the time the "squeeze" day arrived the billion dollar losers had already covered.
OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
Why did you post this commment twice?

goldnugget92 5y ago

[dead]

shlant 5y ago
wow I had no idea how much time has been dumped into propping up this conspiracy theory. People have a lot of time on their hands (but I guess rationalizing ones own investments is good motivation)

carnitine 5y ago

Why do you think not a single institutional investor has rallied behind this cause? Hedge funds love fucking each other over and would embrace popularity with the public. Why hasn’t some firm with a few billion under management taken up this cause if there’s really anything there?

goldnugget92 5y ago
They have? Blackrock just added 10% to their stake recently. Not to mention the former-Amazon staff that GameStop is hiring along with the header of BlockChain at Microsoft mentioning working with GameStop on their new NFT Market Place. Don't just get your news from Bloomberg or CNN.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  Blackrock and Vanguard own GME because they operate the biggest S&P ETFs and mutual funds. GME has increased its percentage of the S&P because retail investors have bought the position. Blackrock is not taking a position that a short squeeze is possible they are just reacting to the index.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    GME isn't in the SPX
    - kasey_junk 5y ago
      They are in sp400 which also makes them a constituent of sp1000. Further they are in sptmi which massive etfs like vanguards vti & blackrocks itot are benchmarked against st.
      - odonnellryan 5y ago
        Ah sorry - for some reason I thought you said SP500. Should not comment before coffee :(
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  is this related to Microsoft shutting down Azure Blockchain due to lack of interest?
simpleguitar 5y ago
Because that would be illegal market manipulation. Any institute, including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze. The SEC rules on this is quite clear. What's interesting to me is that the official SEC report on GameStop "squeeze" specifically called out that the rise in price WAS NOT due to short covering, but rather a large increase in retail buying and market makers balancing options. So the reported % short went from more than 100% to less than %20 with zero short covering and prices falling? Yeah, sure.
- danuker 5y ago
  How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others. Is there any law or ruling you can point out to?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > How and why is that illegal? I am stumped that market participants would not be allowed to correct the capital misallocations of others. I don't think (but someone correct me as I'm no professional) the occurrence of short squeezes are illegal, unless there is a knowing collusion behind it (check previous cases from courts regarding collusion to trigger short squeezes). What is illegal is naked shorting (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regsho.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regsho.asp) which could be a trigger/condition to future squeezes..
    - pkhamre 5y ago
      Side note; The CEO of Aterian ($ATER) has tweeted about preliminary data of naked shorts and that they hired a third party company to fight this. https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1455515851541598208 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1455515851541598208 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1448716392656670722 https://twitter.com/yaniv_sarig/status/1448716392656670722
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze Issuers have precedent for issuing shares into shorts [1][2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30iht-norris31.1.17372644.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-03/amc-has-a-bit-more-stock-to-sell https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-03/amc-ha...

xenadu02 5y ago

A bunch of shorts 100% closed their positions. That was the original smaller push that made the stock take off. The rest of it was momentum from retail investors, algorithms, etc. There was never going to be a flag day though... shorts cover over time as their bet looks less likely to payoff. By the time the "squeeze" day arrived the billion dollar losers had already covered.

OrderlyTiamat 5y ago

Why did you post this commment twice?