/r/wsb autists taking on a wallstreet hedgefund. Elon musk involved as always / wallstreetbets / gamestop - Gamergate 2: financial boogaloo

[LemmeSee]

lmao imagine if this is what gets section 230 taken away.

 

[Spasticus Autisticus]

Hi fellow kiwis.

I just want to say, no matter how bad a day you're having, no matter how rough it seems right now, I just want you to keep in mind:


At least you're not the poor motherfucker who is trying to explain to Joe Biden what short selling is and how it works.

Turns out we should have voted for Hillary all along. She'd be starting her second term right now, and she'd have a handle on this. After all, she's an expert trader, she did so well in cattle futures.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Straight up going to make Gamestop the richest company in the history of mankind trough sheer technicality, amazing

It's what happened to VW, won't happen here though because the shares are in the hands of retail who absolutely will sell at some point well before that occurs.

 

[TerminalTryHard]

That might not be good for a Drive In, but like Imagine a Saturday Night Theme night..first 3 Die Hards in a Row, 10 Bucks and have Classic Diner quality food, Winter? Hot Cocoa.

Lol yeah but my point was they need something more than just movies. Theaters are in direct competition with streaming and streaming will always be cheaper and more convenient.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Now all I can visualize is a billionaire Foodie Beauty bragging about buying a million Whoppers in a single day.

If Chantal pushed the whopper button to the tune of $42m a day with a fund of $2b made off of the GME stocks, she could gorge for a solid and steady 47.6 days.
This, of course, will only assist her in her epic quest to lose weight.

 

[Overly Serious]

we can do that.
here's some hedgie crying about (((they))) have to pay taxes
View attachment 1881637

Thing is I agree with him. And I'm pretty sure most of the people involved with this do as well - a "wealth tax" is pretty counter-productive, disincentivises success, isn't very ethical and frankly doesn't accomplish nearly as much as people think because the large majority of earnings aren't the tiny elite but the middle class. People like Elizabeth Warren leaping on this to push her Wealth Tax agenda are not even looking at the actual problem.

It's not lack of taxes on the rich that caused this. It's double standards that let super-wealthy funds make destructive bets and then skip away from the consequences. If you remove all penalty of failure by forcing the tax payer to bail them out each time, then you will get failure, after failure, after failure.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Slight PL:
I worked with silver in a manufacturing industry. Believe it or not, silver is considered a hazardous material. So our genius managers told everyone to dump the silver powders, etc.. into a Haz-Mat drum. They paid >$1000 to haul away a drum OF SILVER METAL.

I snagged a few handfuls and made some impromptu ingots.

Did you turn blue or did you take proper precautions?

 

[AnotherPleb]

It's what happened to VW, won't happen here though because the shares are in the hands of retail who absolutely will sell at some point well before that occurs.

And if not Wall street will lean on brokers to make them sell. RH wasn't an anomaly.

 

[Cum]

Honestly, I do like the idea of preventing GameStop from going bankrupt. For as sketchy as their used games practice has been, I think their existence has helped physical games (and the property rights thereof) remain relevant.

Investing in AMC doesn't seem as wise to me, I've never been fond of the theater experience or box office blockbusters. I'm not mourning the death of theaters, and I think if they were to recover, it would be in some godawful digital distribution form.

 

[american_amadan]

I just opened my Lehman Brothers statement online after awhile and what the fuck???? Everything is gone!

 

[Kinoplex Robert]

If you're in on this because "I'm gonna be rich!" and not because you want to spit into a Banker's face and laugh at their inability to wipe it off then you've already lost.

Doomers fuck off, we know we are riding a train with tracks leading into a brick wall, we just aren't going to detach the carts holding the rich fucks before we collide.

 

[+MarkOuttaBat+]

Thing is I agree with him. And I'm pretty sure most of the people involved with this do as well - a "wealth tax" is pretty counter-productive, disincentivises success, isn't very ethical and frankly doesn't accomplish nearly as much as people think because the large majority of earnings aren't the tiny elite but the middle class. People like Elizabeth Warren leaping on this to push her Wealth Tax agenda are not even looking at the actual problem.

It's not lack of taxes on the rich that caused this. It's double standards that let super-wealthy funds make destructive bets and then skip away from the consequences. If you remove all penalty of failure by forcing the tax payer to bail them out each time, then you will get failure, after failure, after failure.

Holy shit, finally someone who isn't a dumb commie actually pointing out the source of the issue.

 

[Disheveled Human]

Holding till next months will be really nice the paper hands drop out and the millionaire diamond hands hang tough.

 

[HumanHive]

I’m only posting half of this ZH article because only half of it is interesting - by which I mean a major financial disaster may already be in motion.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-caps-maximum-holdings-36-stocks-just-one-share

“And as a postscript, while we expect that the turmoil will be contained at Robinhood, whether in the form of new capital infusion, a takeover, or bankruptcy, there is the possibility that the liqudity shortfall goes as far as the clearinghouses. What happens then? Below we excerpt from a monthly letter written by Horseman's Russell Clark who had a good recap of "what if":

Pre-financial crisis, banks and clearinghouses were part of one big and messy system. Banks mainly traded with other banks as it was cheaper, but every now and then they would trade through a clearinghouse. There were two types of trades. Circular trades, which are trades where each bank has a position, but the system has a flat position, and directional trades, where the system would match up buyers who wanted to take a view on future movements of financial markets. Directional trades are more dangerous; risk will be less evenly distributed as it will have no offsetting trades.
When Lehman went bust, LCH, the biggest interest rate derivative clearinghouse, found they only needed one third of the initial margin to cover losses. This encouraged regulators to move clearinghouses to the center of the financial system. However, this has caused two big problems.
Firstly, clearinghouses have no real "skin in the game". They act like a bookie, that takes bets from punters, and transfers money from winners to losers. But how much risk should they take? What is the correct level of initial margin? Clearinghouses used to piggyback on bank's risk measures, but without banks to guide them, how should they set risk? Clearing houses and regulators chose to use a backward-looking model, with risks set from market data from between 3 and 10 years in the past. This has caused the markets to have a built-in momentum model which amplifies cycle both ways. Hence, many of the normal trading rules don't apply. There will be no signs of problems in the market until right at the last moment. Markets are no longer discounting mechanisms and have become more akin to momentum models.
Secondly, banks are now deeply capital constrained, and at the start were very reluctant to move old trades to a centrally cleared model. This problem was resolved through a carrot and stick approach. The stick is uncleared trades carry a capital charge, and the carrot is that the exchanges offer very attractive "netting". What netting means is that banks can give details of all their trades to a third party, and any circular trades can then be netted off thus requiring less margin. LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.
The problem should be apparent. Clearinghouses were safe because, if there was a problem, the circular trades netted off on settlement. But by aggressively netting off at the margin stage they are no longer as safe. In fact they are very risky. This was highlighted by the near failure of a small clearinghouse in Europe last year. Using BIS data on the penetration of central clearing, and pricing of interest rate derivatives as a proxy of initial margins, I would say that initial margin in the system needs to rise by about 6 times to make the system "safe". Looking at previous periods of rising initial margins in 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, the pro-cyclicality of claringhouses should be obvious.
Finally, cash hoarding and repo market problems could be a sign of counterparties beginning to worry about clearinghouses. If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself. One way to think about it is that the financial crisis only metastasized when MG failed, because at that point, everyone suddenly became un-hedged, and everyone needed to sell.

“
__________
tl;dr One of the regulatory fixes from 2008 may have broken something, and that’s now an exposed nerve.

 

[LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]]

It wasn't a meme, Gamers are rising up

 

[Rumpled Foreskin]

View attachment 1881679

Kill your minecraft character!

 

[Overly Serious]

Holy shit, finally someone who isn't a dumb commie actually pointing out the source of the issue.

Thanks, but I genuinely think most people here actually already think the same and I'm pretty certain the WSB's do, too. The fact you're getting AOC and Elizabeth Warren trying to ride the coattails is annoying but most of us don't want to be handed someone's wealth in some communist redistribution. Even if we did we know what comes next.

Most just want a level playing field. Because we know we'd win.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Holding till next months will be really nice the paper hands drop out and the millionaire diamond hands hang tough.

Your broker will protect you from this very high risk, white supremacist strategy by liquidating during the next short ladder attack.

 

[+MarkOuttaBat+]

I’m only posting half of this ZH article because only half of it is interesting - by which I mean a major financial disaster may already be in motion.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-caps-maximum-holdings-36-stocks-just-one-share

“And as a postscript, while we expect that the turmoil will be contained at Robinhood, whether in the form of new capital infusion, a takeover, or bankruptcy, there is the possibility that the liqudity shortfall goes as far as the clearinghouses. What happens then? Below we excerpt from a monthly letter written by Horseman's Russell Clark who had a good recap of "what if":

“
__________
tl;dr One of the regulatory fixes from 2008 may have broken something, and that’s now an exposed nerve.

Yeah, this is one of the big things about the 2008 crash. The fix may have left more holes then intended.

All in all this will show how our economy is made off of a select few people not really contributing anything to it and just shuffling money around causing more damage then fixes.

Man... fuck Obama

 

[Vaclav]

View attachment 1881333
Finally able to get some data on Blackberry, has been privated since the 27th. People have been recommending to go long on BB, thoughts?

Going long on random low-value stocks isn't the same as the GME gambit. GME worked specifically because people were aware that Melvin had taken a massive short position and that they were contractually obligated to buy back all the stock. If you don't have information that someone has a massive short position that will require a buyback of a security, pumping it as with GME makes no sense; there are no funtamentals that will likely boost BB's value.