tempsy

50 ms·

631.
by tempsy 6y ago
The fact that they’ve not only limited trading in GME but low volatility name like Starbucks to 1 share is ridiculous. If the only outcome out of this is collective realization about issues with Section 230 or forced arbitration that is a p
632.
Robinhood adds more trading restrictions, including on Starbucks and GM(robinhood.com)
24 points by tempsy 6y ago|3 comments
633.
by tempsy 6y ago
The CEO just gave 3 interviews tonight and denied this was at all related to liquidity issues for the company in all 3 when pressed. Terrible look.
634.
by tempsy 6y ago
who knows but their market cap has become so bloated that any new issuance would probably not be that dilutive. i doubt that is what would trigger a crash.
635.
by tempsy 6y ago
i guess we’ll disagree there. i’m sure the big boys are playing the swings but they didn’t start this. and it’s not just Gamestop it’s a lot of names.
636.
by tempsy 6y ago
the reality is all of their major shorts are being squeezed not just Gamestop, but I agree I think their CNBC interview was just a distraction and doubt they could’ve closed out their entire short position overnight.
637.
by tempsy 6y ago
nah you’re underestimating their power to move names in small cap stocks with high short interest.
638.
by tempsy 6y ago
that isn’t what the article is saying. it’s arguing that the short squeeze is less about pure profit making, though of course that’s part of it, but more about actively trying to hurt hedge funds who are naked short selling and potentially
639.
GameStop Is Rage Against the Financial Machine(bloomberg.com)
1078 points by tempsy 6y ago|1146 comments
640.
Short Sellers Crushed Like Never Before as Retail Army Charges(bloomberg.com)
26 points by tempsy 6y ago|6 comments
641.
by tempsy 6y ago
no it’s not. i’m talking about covered calls which is where you sell a call against your shares. you collect the premium from the option in exchange for potentially limited upside if your sold call goes in the money at the time of expiratio
642.
by tempsy 6y ago
it’s safer than just holding stock which is what 99% of people do...so how is that more exposure than your average long retirement account?
643.
by tempsy 6y ago
I can make $200k selling covered calls every month with a few million in capital. Options prices are crazy right now. It makes you think about how silly money is.
644.
by tempsy 6y ago
Who needs bitcoin when Deutsche Bank and HSBC exist?
645.
by tempsy 6y ago
bitcoin appears to have just become another asset that rich people on wall street are hoarding with no real attention or interest in the actual payment mechanism at all. it might as well just be some trading cards being shuffled around.
646.
by tempsy 6y ago
No it’s not. You’ll miss the forest for the trees if you waste a second wondering if you should cut back on office snacks instead of how to grow your business. Money is extremely cheap and easy right now.
647.
by tempsy 6y ago
lol it was already bought by PE and now going public Blackstone owns it.
648.
Bumble S-1(sec.gov)
165 points by tempsy 6y ago|231 comments
649.
Affirm pops more than 100% after market debut(cnbc.com)
1 points by tempsy 6y ago|0 comments
650.
by tempsy 6y ago
acquisitions aren't necessarily great for employees because liquidation preferences apply. with SPAC-mania they could merge with a SPAC or go public. my point is the path to going public is much easier now than a year ago.
651.
by tempsy 6y ago
Uh no. Plaid is probably worth much more now than it was when it was acquired. The entire market has become much more frothy. I would not be surprised if it could command a $10B+ valuation as a standalone company.
652.
by tempsy 6y ago
how is it crazy to want to apply a regulatory framework to certain industries? we do that for cable companies, ISPs, banks, publishers, food producers, restaurants, etc etc. So why not social media? The only reason is these companies are “n
653.
by tempsy 6y ago
I didn’t say that they were social utilities right now, I’m saying this could very well spark interest in regulating social media as more than just any old private business with zero regulatory framework attached to them.
654.
by tempsy 6y ago
clearly it’s more than that. these companies are more than just private companies they are social utilities. and might be regulated as such in the future. that’s my point.
655.
by tempsy 6y ago
The point is these platforms are actively banning apps that appeal to a political party that represents half of America. if Parler is banned from the App Store a PWA is the next best thing.
656.
by tempsy 6y ago
Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.
657.
by tempsy 6y ago
I think so. I think we will see more investment in progressive web apps for mobile.
658.
by tempsy 6y ago
I just mean I think we will start seeing more interest/investment in things like progressive web apps that aren’t beholden to centralized platforms but feel like native mobile apps.
659.
by tempsy 6y ago
Suddenly half the population is realizing the cons of centralized platforms. Curious if this moment sparks renewed interest in decentralized tech of yesteryear ie the good ol world wide web.
660.
by tempsy 6y ago
Something tells me that internet-fueled political division isn't going away just because social media sites are starting to crack down and Trump is leaving office...

More ›