3 ms·
I mean look at Citigroup. C was $564.10 at the end of 2006. By early 2009 it was $10.20 - that's about a 98.2% reduction in the stock price. That's a much larg
by NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
I mean look at Citigroup.
C was $564.10 at the end of 2006. By early 2009 it was $10.20 - that's about a 98.2% reduction in the stock price. That's a much larger destruction of capital than GME ever was.
- WJW 5y agoDo you imply that it was excessive short selling between 2006 and 2009 that lowered the price of Citigroup? It seems much more likely that the 2008 financial crisis had a lot to do with it and that Citigroup (which famously only escaped bankruptcy due to a government bailout) indeed lost 98.2% of its equity value. So it wasn't the stock price falling that brought the company low, it was the company failing that brought the stock price low.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoNo; not suggesting this has to with excessive short selling. I’m just supplying a data point to support the point that a large decrease in stock price needn’t have a material affect on the ability of a firm to operate.
- raxxorrax 5y agoDidn't they make a 1 for 10 split in between? Still a reduction of course.