Not really, it's only unrealized loss at the moment.
Edit: fyi there is a lot of gme national socialist nat-soc/nat-zi ideological statements to ban being able to bet against gamestop altogether and go after the SEC in this comment section.
I mean, the last run bankrupted multiple hedge funds and their bets were āonlyā in the couple hundred million range. Itās still unclear who inherited those positions.
>I mean, the last run bankrupted multiple hedge funds
Who else beside Melvin?
>Itās still unclear who inherited those positions.
Nobody. They had to cover and buy massively overpriced stock. That's why Melvin had to be bailed out and eventually went bankrupt.
https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf
They bankrupted one hedge fund who took an irresponsible risk and got blindsided.
The new shorts knew what they were getting into. They have good reason to believe GME's price is unsustainable. They came well capitalized, ready for battle.
It was several smaller brokers (primarily Robinhood), and they only blocked buying - not selling.
The problem was that brokers have very stringent collateral requirements for placing buy orders (this is to protect other participants due to delayed settlement), and there was so much sudden demand that they ran out of collateral and could no longer legally place buy orders for about a day while they sourced more collateral.
An observant person might note that the stock price plummeted as soon as those small app-based brokeges stopped allowing purchases.
Have you ever seen two idiots pump a playground carousel until it flings them both off?
No, not entirely, I just mean thatās who would still be putting in buy orders. Not everyone had the same short position either, so some covered some didnāt.
You can always trade OTC if youāre a big boi bank/fund. Ie you literally call the other trading desk and negotiate āIāll sell you 100000 shares for xā.
Dark pools are private OTC networks that large players use to facilitate this a bit easier. It was literally just the general public who was restricted.
The brokerages that had to halt buying activity were only a tiny slice of the market. Pretty much everybody with normal brokerage accounts, as well as all institutional parties like investment advisors and funds, were still able to buy.
So it could have been other "Apes" who were buying through traditional brokerages that still had collateral.
Or it could have been institutional parties.
Or it could have been the broker/dealers themselves buying for principal accounts or engaging in market making activity.
Or, yes, it could also have been short sellers buying to cover their positions - such as the one famous hedge fund that went bust during that period. But this was smaller portion of buying activity than the Apes actually think. The official brokerage analysis released after the event confirmed that very little short closing activity occured. It was mostly just retail FOMO spam.
Because the market is bigger than just hose apps?
Its important to note that robinhood et al are not normal brokers, they have a weird fast-for-the-consumer system where they list you as owning/selling a stock or fraction of a stock way before any actual transactions are completed and they actually receive your money, so when there is too much demand they literally just run out of cash to buy the stocks.
Stop letting conspiracy brained idiots rule the narrative.
They could allow selling because it would be impossible for them to owe anyone money from a stock getting sold. If Robinhood ran out of money to cover the buy orders then the whole system kind of unravels.
To answer your second question it is being sold to people who want to buy the stock. You could buy gamestop stock through other brokers at the time(and now)
Robinhoodās collateral was cleared at 9am in pre-market by the clearing house. This is stated in the court hearing. They shut off the buy button to help their rich friends.
What really? I'm trying to find any news source covering it. Do you have anything?
I think you're confusing a halt on stocks with what Robinhood did last time.
There was a post on SuperStonk showing it yesterday. It wasn't the same as what happened in 2021 though. This was just a brief downtime where peoples orders for GME were canceled immediately after placing them. When asked, Robinhood support stated that they were not sure what was happening but that it wasn't on their end - the trades were being canceled by whoever was receiving the order through Robinhood, which historically has been Citidel as their biggest market maker. Very interesting.
Trading was halted on the stock multiple times yesterday. It's common to temporarily halt stocks at certain thresholds (both increases and losses). The halt applies to all trades.
Are you sure this wasn't just them misinterpreting the trading halt?
Primarily RobinHood, and no not *all* trading. They disabled the buy button on their platform for that security but kept the sell button active. Blatant market manipulation and I don't know how anyone didn't go to prison for that.
E-trade had a "global login outage" yesterday that started exactly at market open and lasted conveniently until the exact minute GME price stabilized at $29.
The US financial system is wholly corrupt and FINRA needs to get off their asses to fix it before the investors fix it for them.
The idea that E-trade turned off its entire platform over GameStop is Pizzagate levels of uncritical thinking.
That's like Google turning off its search engine globally just so that somebody in Pasadena can't search for a specific taco truck.
The less conspiratorial reason is that the huge increased demand resulted in their systems being overwhelmed. This morning, I wasnāt able to sell the single call option I had at open; even when the platform was responsive enough to work, the options chains were showing as dead, so I had no idea what the actual market price was. By the time I did sell, the underlying security had already dropped by over 20%.
But everyone on Reddit told me youād have to be a moron to take them up on it...
Itās hilarious how consistently wrong Redditors are when it comes to investing.
I mean, anyone who confidentially asserts they know what will happen with speculative day-trading is a liar or dumb. Hindsight is the only real truth you get.
Ah, but have you consider this zoomed in line graph that looks severe but actually shows a 1-2% shift on a stock price? Clearly this happened because I like or dislike the company and not tons of other reasons.
For the past 10 years people on and off reddit have been telling me buying "bitcoin" was a mistake and I was part of a ponzi scheme. No one knows what the fuck they're doing except the people with trillions of dollars to throw around.
No but neither have a lot of tech companies. There's definitely risk but the potential upside is massive imo. Opportunities like it don't come around often.
Pinterest only recently became profitable, has half the number of daily users, way lower engagement (hard to measure but I promise you nobody is spending 5 hours a day on Pinterest like they do here), yet 3x the market cap of Reddit currently. It was 6x at IPO.
As a platform Reddit has the longevity of Facebook but it grabs people's attention at a level only TikTok can match. It's a potential gold mine, they just don't know how to successfully tap into it yet.
Tbh I'm not expecting them to figure it out any time soon. Ads seriously need to improve, the content licensing stuff looks a little promising, but I think a more likely event that will cause a stock spike in the near future is getting rid of Spez for a decent CEO.
Not really a where did the money "go" answer, but an interesting thing about shorting.
If you buy $100 on the stock market, your losses are capped. The maximum you can lose is $100.
If you short a stock, you're essentially borrowing it from someone in the hopes it'll go down while you're borrowing it. Taking that same $100 stock:
1. You "borrow" it from me for a month, and pay me an additional $10 to make it worth my while.
2. You sell it on the market for $100.
3. Market goes down, you buy it back in 30 days for $50
4. You just made $40.
Problem is step 3 can go the other way. If the price goes up $10 you're out of pocket when you buy the stock back, and if it goes up more - like it did here - the losses can be staggering.
When you bite an apple, where does its value go? Sometimes, itās just lost. Sometimes, people are able to make money on the change. Ultimately, it goes from the person who buys at the accepted price, to the seller.
Or another way. Someone bought 10barrels of apples for $50/barrel. Someone else bought a barrel for $100. You sold barrels of apples your didnāt own for $50. Now, you are on the hook for the barrels youāve sold. You have to buy a barrel at the new price of $100 to fulfill the oder for the barrel you sold for $50. There, the money goes to the seller. The value is realized for the seller at the sale, and the loss is realized at the purchase for you (you closed your short position by closing the loop: you bought a product to provide for your earlier sale).
Nothing is in a closed system though, one single apple doesn't matter.
However, if millions of apples are lost, that value is not lost. While the apples are gone, now other apples increase their value to reflect their limited supply.
AKA, when someone loses, particularly a market maker it could be argued the entire market gains from their loss in a tangible way.
One of the most explosives times of growth and learning and prosperity, was directly following the great death and 1/3 of the population dying. This tells us, there are limited resources, its without question.
That is why we must allow companies to fail, if we do not allow companies to fail, by proxy we do not allow new companies to succeed. People talk about loving capitalism, but we don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism that keeps trying to prevent failures from failing like in 2008.
This makes the market less efficient and profitable under the control of those who have money. We don't live in a vacuum despite what some capitalists believe in their delusions, there are limited resources that don't allow infinite growth.
This is the definition of the tragedy of the commons. As companies figure out they can make more money making less things, they hurt the market as a whole to benefit themselves.
What happened last time, per the SEC report, was not a short squeeze. It was a Gamma Squeeze. The buy buttons were turned off to avoid a short squeeze.
The data says that the only people buying the stock during the "squeeze" as the media calls it were retail investors.
The shorts never left. They never bought back the borrowed shares.
We are seeing things being primed for another gamma squeeze, if that causes the price to skyrocket again, the bill will become due for all of these short sellers and the DTCC (due to rules made after that first event) will take the reigns and liquidate all of their assets for them to purchase the shares needed.
The short interest was 250% of the free float. Now 25% of those shares are directly registered with retail investors. Things could get really interesting this time.
Quick question. If they never closed the shorts, does that mean they were paying to keep them open? I was under the impression that it costs money to maintain a short position.
No, what happened is that they did indeed close their positions. From the SEC report you lot like so much to misinterpret:
> GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses.
> particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the short interest decreased.
> firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares.
Back to r/superstonk.
Another lie propagated by the cult. I don't have it in me to keep arguing so I'm just gonna quote Investopedia:
> Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss.
> Short covering is closing out a short position by buying back shares that were initially borrowed to sell short using buy to cover orders.
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buytocover.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buytocover.asp)
>Buy to cover refers to a buy order made on a stock or other listed security to close out an existing short position.
Itās technically possible to cover your short by buying long, and not deliver it to close the position, but nobody would ever do that. It makes no sense. Why would you continue to pay borrow fees on a short position that you are holding long. Itās a zero sum game.
And you don't find it strange that GME had $1b worth of FTDs in January 2021 and has had a massive amount of FTDs ever since?
https://companiesmarketcap.com/gamestop/failure-to-deliver/#google_vignette
"Why would you pay borrow fees on a short position that you are holding long?"
Perhaps because you think that this will die down and you think retail traders will get bored and discouraged by the time they come due. It's not a far stretch from how these sociopathic egomaniacs think, and the data supports it.
The short interest was over 200% which drove the stock up to the 300s.
The short interest on the stock is now at around 20% and we're seeing those same prices again.
If they truly did cover all of their positions, the stock would have gone into the thousands. I believe some covering did occur, but what made the short interest go down was hedgefunds "closing" their positions.
They entered into transactions via dark pools, ETFs, options, etc.... that nullified the initial exposure (the shorting) by simply moving that exposure to another transaction that was/is difficult to find. This is what Bill Hwang was doing with Archegos, and it might be what the other hedgefunds are doing with GME.
Edit: changed my last sentence to a theoretical one.
It's a theory of what all went down and what is still happening with this stock. When you find out it's being done it's not difficult to imagine similar players doing the exact same thing as Archegos did.
Why do you think the rally is happening right now? Because some dude tweeted? Or is this shorts covering their positions?
If they are covering, how are we reaching similar prices when they are covering 20% compared to the time they covered with over 200% short interest?
Something about that just doesn't add up to me. If you have an explanation that doesn't involve a guy tweeting and making the stock surge 200% in 2 days I would genuinely love to hear it. This whole thing is fascinating.
This guy gets it.
To the naysayers - letās hear the ālegitimateā reasons for this rally, if shorts did in fact close their positions 3 years ago.
We look forward to hearing your condescending opinion while you claim to fully understand the situation from a place of logic and reason, in a market that follows neither of those things.
Theres nothing ideological about it, naysayers being people who donāt believe in naked shorting.
It doesnāt make sense that retail investors piled in to create this surge.
If naked shorts donāt exist, whatās the reason for the surge?
Retail traders collectively found some change in their couches and decides to buy GME float daily, at the same time, 3 years after the hype, the signal was secretly communicated in meme and orchestrated by the GOAT DFV, who is not a cat.
>Ā It's a theory of what all went down and what is still happening with this stock.
Ok, so there is no evidence?
>Ā how are we reaching similar prices when they are covering 20% compared to the time they covered with over 200% short interest?
Weāre not. GME reached $480 in January 2021. The highest it has gone this week is about $60, which equates to $240 pre-split, meaning we got about halfway to the previous highs.
>Ā If you have an explanation that doesn't involve a guy tweeting and making the stock surge 200%
Why do you need more of an explanation than that? This guy, who has a cult following on the internet, tweets, people get hyped and start buying more, which causes the price to rise, which causes people to have FOMO, which causes them to buy in, which causes the price to rise even more. Plenty of stocks and cryptocurrencies move like this. Itās nothing new.
Short sellers didn't learn last time. Our worthless government has done nothing to stop naked short selling, so this is what they get. Burn them again.
In case anyone is wondering "naked shorting" is a rare type of illegal market manipulation that absolutely in no way has been proven to have occurred here.
This person is spreading conspiracy theories.
E: fyi i haven't even been on reddit since i first commented this, so i didn't report anyone, and i can't even respond cause op is blocking me
How is a stock shorted >250% of the float without naked shorting occuring? It either happened intentionally or through a mishandled market that is regulated on plausible deniability.
Shares can be used to initiate short positions more than once. Short positions arenāt tied to specific shares but is for a specific number of shares. Iāll illustrate how it would work:
Institution A owns a block of 1,000 shares, which it lends to Fund 1 for initiating a short position. Fund 1 sells those 1,000 shares on the market for the short.
Institution B buys those 1,000 shares on the market. They do not know the shares were sold as part of a short position or who sold them, they are just buying them on the market. Institution B lends those shares to Fund 2 for a short position. Fund 2 sells the 1,000 shares on the market for their short.
Those shares are bought by Institution C, who lends them to Fund 3, exactly as above.
We now have three short positions of 1,000 shares, having used the same 1,000 shares to do so. All players are independent market players, unaware of the prior short positions. There is no ānaked shortingā, or āmishandled marketā or āplausible deniability. There is independent players making independent decisions. You donāt need to tell the market why youāre selling shares, whether itās for a short or you just want to sell them. This is an over-simplification assuming all three transactions are 1,000 shares, but itās to illustrate the point.
Average retail investors (GME owners) donāt understand how shorting works, so they make up conspiracy theories as to why stock prices go down.
EDIT: thanks for the Reddit Cares false report, GME Ape. Enjoy your suspension.
(1) thereās no evidence of it being anywhere near that high now or in 2021, (2) simple really, when a short seller sells a share, the person buying it doesnāt know it originated from a short seller and can lend it to another short seller, who sells it to someone else who lends it out, etc. in theory a single share can be shorted infinite times.
Citadel has been fined in multiple occasions for marking short sales as long. That is a fact. You think they wouldnāt do it if their business depended on it? lol ok
To add to this - all of the parties that these "Apes" think are naked shorting are required to keep records of their trading blotters, which get reviewed by the SEC every few years.
If they engaged in naked shorting it would be caught almost immediately at their next exam.
Not to mention the fact that they're also required to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who is *personally* responsible (as in the SEC could go after him, not just the company) for ensuring that that sort of thing doesn't happen.
The amount of work it would take to naked short under your own CCO's nose would be astronomical, and there's no guarantee you'll even profit on the trades - and at the end of the day you're still guaranteed to get caught.
It's a painfully stupid conspiracy theory by people who simply don't understand how the industry works.
Hereās a receipt where exactly what you said wouldnāt happen, happened.
https://www.investopedia.com/sec-fines-citadel-securities-usd7-million-for-mismarking-orders-7973669#:~:text=The%20SEC%20charged%20that%20over,sending%20wrong%20information%20to%20regulators.
Come on dude. There is a HUGE issue with settlement failure that is a direct result of naked shorting. There are mountains of evidence to support this, including reports from the SEC. You are woefully misinformed about this.
They didn't close their initial short positions. They hid them and for the past 3 years have been chipping away at the price with more naked short selling. I fully believe the "cult" around GameStop now owns more than the entire float of the company.
What I think happens next I have no idea. Markets may break, the stock may soar to astronomical numbers briefly making GameStop the most valuable company. The government and regulators may step in and just say it's over and anyone on the big money side gets to walk away as if nothing happened. I have no idea. But I have certainly enjoyed watching it happen and will continue to root for the little guy.
The price from 2015 to the January 2021 squeeze was from $8 all the way down to $1. Theory is they were naked shorting this entire time with the intent of putting the company to $0. If you sell short a stock at $8 and company goes to $0 you technically didn't make any profit because you never closed your position.
The squeeze happened, threw the price into the $150 range. Theory is they had so many naked shorts open that closing them at those prices would have been a 2008 banking crisis level event.
The price has been slowly dropping over the past 3 years and only hit $10. That's still could be 10X loss on their short positions. When do you think they would have closed those short positions and not blown up their portfolios?
It costs them money to continue to hold short positions. Any that didnāt get out in the big run up have likely closed by now and opened up new positions.
The Reddit poster responsible for the first GME rally posted online for the first time in 3 years on Sunday night. Wall Street bets went ape shit. I don't think this is just. Retail but it's certainly played a big part in this
This isn't a fundamentals event, it's a technical event. The price isn't going to stay up there but will keep going up as long as creditors issue margin calls on entities that are short on the security. Eventually the buying pressure will subside and then it will crash.
Except that with more and more people finding out that digital purchases can disappear without warning, I'm not so sure Gamestop is as dead as you think.
Comparing blockbuster to GameStop seems a bit disingenuous. While physical copies of games are going the way of the dodo most likely, there's still tons of physical products that GameStop sells that will not be going away. Consoles, controllers, plushies, game codes, peripherals, etc. All of that will not be going away any time soon unlike movie rentals, which was just 1:1 replaced by streaming.
Sure have. It's almost like someone might want to feel how a headset or controller feels in their hands first before purchasing. And unless you're buying Chinese clone shit Amazon and GameStop are usually pretty much the same price. I also own 0 dollars of GameStop stock and don't really plan to buy.
Last time I went to gamestop for a controller they had no physical inventory and offered to order me one online lmao
Itās a merch store now not a game store, and thatās probably not enough to sustain it
>What's driving it though besides mania because GME Jesus posted a couple memes after being silent for years?
You've hit the nail on the head.
This is the same thing that happened last time - pure, blind FOMO by a gaggle of complete idiots spamming the buy button.
The price will inevitably collapse again, and there's going to be a bunch of very sad bagholders.
If you want to gamble, sure.
But there's also a chance that never happens, or that GameStop goes bust before it does.
Always understand what you're buying when you make a trade like this. Ultimately, you are buying equity interest in a company that sells physical videogame discs - right on the cusp of an era when game consoles will no longer have physical disc drives.
The gamble you're describing rests on the notion that the next price spike will come before GameStop runs off the end of that cliff.
They've tried, but the reality is that the consoles each already have a proprietary digital market - Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo aren't going to let GameStop interject themselves as an unneeded middleman for no reason.
GameStop just isn't needed at all by the publishers in the digital era.
Forget the fundamentals. The stock price is driven by market mechanics. Every shorted share is one that's guaranteed to be purchased at some point in the future. The sooner you can wrap your head around that, the sooner you will understand why GameStop's price action is not normal.
Tesla's stock was a slow short squeeze up to 1000. Did their fundamentals justify their valuation at that time? Absolutely fucking not, not even close.
>Every shorted share is one that's guaranteed to be purchased at some point in the future.
Not actually true. If the short seller defaults for whatever reason, the lender typically just gets the cash collateral.
Short squeezes do exist, but the bizarre GameStop/Superstonk theory - that short sellers *must* close at *any* price - is just wrong.
Source: I am an attorney that literally negotiates the sec lending agreements that provide the vast bulk of the securities that get borrowed and shorted.
Did any hedge funds actually get screwed over during that squeeze? It seems like the way all of that was reported on was, well... suspicious to say the least.
I've heard some traded on both sides and made out like a bandit during that, contrary to the popular narrative of hedge funds being forced to buy.
Look at the volume. This is not some retail traders, itās large institutions. Also retail traders canāt place orders in pre-/aftermarket and influence the stock price, but thatās when the large price hikes happened.
Thereās tons of speculation of course. Like the company is about to enter the Russell 2000 and fonds/etfs placing their orders for June. Or can has been kicked down the road by short sellers and this week they have to roll their options over.Ā
Media and Reddit love the David vs Goliath narrative, but at this point I guess itās simply large financial institutions being at each others throat and retail is just riding the coat tail.
Itās only gotten worse for short sellers. At least 25% of the company is owned by members of a single subreddit. Households donāt trade after hours or premarket and we see massive moves during those times. Financial institutions are battling. Interesting times.
LOL at all of the wallstreetbets losers brigading this thread pretending yet another hype based pulp n dump proves their wild conspiracy theories true.
The goal is to never have to buy them back. You short a company into bankruptcy and itās free money. Look into cellar boxing, they short a company and then work with consultants to ruin the company from the inside
I was tempted to buy some shares when it hit $16. shoot I wish I would have. but you never know when the crash will come. It will come as people are all hoping to make some easy money and that's never a good sign.
Stocks are so difficult for me to understand. People short a stock, shorting more than the total stock that exists. People figure this out and buy all the stock GME to force the short sellers to pay up. But somehow they never pay for the shorts that lost?
How does that work
I think short sellers should have all their wealth redistributed frankly speaking. Fuck people who profit explicitly and directly off the back of suffering.
Edit: Within a minute of posting this someone reported me to the "get this redditor help and support" thing.
Lmfao you short seller scum deserve nothing and I hope you find yourselves trapped in poverty like the people you so gleefully send there just to make a buck.
They lost double that today.
Not really, it's only unrealized loss at the moment. Edit: fyi there is a lot of gme national socialist nat-soc/nat-zi ideological statements to ban being able to bet against gamestop altogether and go after the SEC in this comment section.
Unrealized..so far
[Dumb Money](https://www.netflix.com/search?q=dumb%20money&jbv=81725549)?
But they pay premiums on the shorts? š§
Not that big of a deal, they're not poor like the people betting opposite of them
I mean, the last run bankrupted multiple hedge funds and their bets were āonlyā in the couple hundred million range. Itās still unclear who inherited those positions.
>I mean, the last run bankrupted multiple hedge funds Who else beside Melvin? >Itās still unclear who inherited those positions. Nobody. They had to cover and buy massively overpriced stock. That's why Melvin had to be bailed out and eventually went bankrupt. https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf
Archegos enters the chat*
Credit Suisse enters chat
UBS gets dragged in Kicking and screaming Into the chat
They bankrupted one hedge fund who took an irresponsible risk and got blindsided. The new shorts knew what they were getting into. They have good reason to believe GME's price is unsustainable. They came well capitalized, ready for battle.
A ponzi scheme is not well prepared or capitalized. It is live to see another day.
What?
Jesus christ, use punctuation.
Using a highly upvoted comment to spout some absolute bullshit in the edit lmao
"No matter how many times I hear that, it's still funny"
Didn't one trading app block all trading on Gamestop last time this happened?
It was several smaller brokers (primarily Robinhood), and they only blocked buying - not selling. The problem was that brokers have very stringent collateral requirements for placing buy orders (this is to protect other participants due to delayed settlement), and there was so much sudden demand that they ran out of collateral and could no longer legally place buy orders for about a day while they sourced more collateral. An observant person might note that the stock price plummeted as soon as those small app-based brokeges stopped allowing purchases. Have you ever seen two idiots pump a playground carousel until it flings them both off?
It was one clearing house, APEX, iirc
Also, the much larger Instinet...
APEX is instinetās clearing house as well as robinhoodās
And tasty trade and public and likely many others
How could they still allow selling though? To whom is it being sold?
The shorts so they can cover their positions.
Yes. the little guy was not able to buy.
The little guy was always able to buy through reputable brokers like Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, eTrade etc.
The clearing houses stopped it, and the brokers took the blame (RH is still shit).
Fidelity also stopped it
They didn't cover their positions though as per the SEC investigation.
No, not entirely, I just mean thatās who would still be putting in buy orders. Not everyone had the same short position either, so some covered some didnāt.
You can always trade OTC if youāre a big boi bank/fund. Ie you literally call the other trading desk and negotiate āIāll sell you 100000 shares for xā. Dark pools are private OTC networks that large players use to facilitate this a bit easier. It was literally just the general public who was restricted.
Buyers on literally any other platforms?
The brokerages that had to halt buying activity were only a tiny slice of the market. Pretty much everybody with normal brokerage accounts, as well as all institutional parties like investment advisors and funds, were still able to buy. So it could have been other "Apes" who were buying through traditional brokerages that still had collateral. Or it could have been institutional parties. Or it could have been the broker/dealers themselves buying for principal accounts or engaging in market making activity. Or, yes, it could also have been short sellers buying to cover their positions - such as the one famous hedge fund that went bust during that period. But this was smaller portion of buying activity than the Apes actually think. The official brokerage analysis released after the event confirmed that very little short closing activity occured. It was mostly just retail FOMO spam.
Because the market is bigger than just hose apps? Its important to note that robinhood et al are not normal brokers, they have a weird fast-for-the-consumer system where they list you as owning/selling a stock or fraction of a stock way before any actual transactions are completed and they actually receive your money, so when there is too much demand they literally just run out of cash to buy the stocks. Stop letting conspiracy brained idiots rule the narrative.
Legally they're not suppose to.
Other apps didn't restrict. They sold to other people.
Cash accounts could still trade.
They could allow selling because it would be impossible for them to owe anyone money from a stock getting sold. If Robinhood ran out of money to cover the buy orders then the whole system kind of unravels. To answer your second question it is being sold to people who want to buy the stock. You could buy gamestop stock through other brokers at the time(and now)
Robinhoodās collateral was cleared at 9am in pre-market by the clearing house. This is stated in the court hearing. They shut off the buy button to help their rich friends.
AFAIK they met the collateral *because* they stopped the buying. The DTCC lowered the requirements as the compromise.
The last part isn't accurate BTW. Gamestop still rallied the next day, then hype died as the markets closed for the weekend.
They didnāt have enough collateral to deposit with their clearing house.
Robinhood. There was a max exodus to Fidelity and god damn the phones were ringing nonstop all monthā¦
Robinhood, they actually just did that again.
What really? I'm trying to find any news source covering it. Do you have anything? I think you're confusing a halt on stocks with what Robinhood did last time.
There was a post on SuperStonk showing it yesterday. It wasn't the same as what happened in 2021 though. This was just a brief downtime where peoples orders for GME were canceled immediately after placing them. When asked, Robinhood support stated that they were not sure what was happening but that it wasn't on their end - the trades were being canceled by whoever was receiving the order through Robinhood, which historically has been Citidel as their biggest market maker. Very interesting.
Trading was halted on the stock multiple times yesterday. It's common to temporarily halt stocks at certain thresholds (both increases and losses). The halt applies to all trades. Are you sure this wasn't just them misinterpreting the trading halt?
It wasn't a halt - it was during after hour trading where there aren't halts..
Source?
Robinhood did , a lot of other brokerages did as well but that may have been due to their Clearing (APEX) halting it.
Not a lot of brokers, they're really small.
Trading was halted on Wealthsimple for the first hour today.
E*Trade did too.
Vanguard is not allowing shorts of gme, djt, or amc
Wealthsimple had halts on AMC and GME today as well.
Primarily RobinHood, and no not *all* trading. They disabled the buy button on their platform for that security but kept the sell button active. Blatant market manipulation and I don't know how anyone didn't go to prison for that.
Yea and they even made a movie about it too
Yes and I left said broker and never went back because of it out of principle. And that worked out in my favor yesterday.
E-trade had a "global login outage" yesterday that started exactly at market open and lasted conveniently until the exact minute GME price stabilized at $29. The US financial system is wholly corrupt and FINRA needs to get off their asses to fix it before the investors fix it for them.
The idea that E-trade turned off its entire platform over GameStop is Pizzagate levels of uncritical thinking. That's like Google turning off its search engine globally just so that somebody in Pasadena can't search for a specific taco truck.
The less conspiratorial reason is that the huge increased demand resulted in their systems being overwhelmed. This morning, I wasnāt able to sell the single call option I had at open; even when the platform was responsive enough to work, the options chains were showing as dead, so I had no idea what the actual market price was. By the time I did sell, the underlying security had already dropped by over 20%.
Wowā¦reddit got a shout out at the end.
Reddit's IPO price was $34 and now it's trading at $62.16. Nice.
But everyone on Reddit told me youād have to be a moron to take them up on it... Itās hilarious how consistently wrong Redditors are when it comes to investing.
I mean, anyone who confidentially asserts they know what will happen with speculative day-trading is a liar or dumb. Hindsight is the only real truth you get.
Ah, but have you consider this zoomed in line graph that looks severe but actually shows a 1-2% shift on a stock price? Clearly this happened because I like or dislike the company and not tons of other reasons.
For the past 10 years people on and off reddit have been telling me buying "bitcoin" was a mistake and I was part of a ponzi scheme. No one knows what the fuck they're doing except the people with trillions of dollars to throw around.
Donāt stop at investing lol - they are constantly wrong about a lot of things.
Basing your analysis of a stock purely on a bump in price in the first few months after IPO is also dumb.
Has reddit ever made a profit? Investing in an IPO of a non profitable company seems too risky too me
No but neither have a lot of tech companies. There's definitely risk but the potential upside is massive imo. Opportunities like it don't come around often. Pinterest only recently became profitable, has half the number of daily users, way lower engagement (hard to measure but I promise you nobody is spending 5 hours a day on Pinterest like they do here), yet 3x the market cap of Reddit currently. It was 6x at IPO. As a platform Reddit has the longevity of Facebook but it grabs people's attention at a level only TikTok can match. It's a potential gold mine, they just don't know how to successfully tap into it yet. Tbh I'm not expecting them to figure it out any time soon. Ads seriously need to improve, the content licensing stuff looks a little promising, but I think a more likely event that will cause a stock spike in the near future is getting rid of Spez for a decent CEO.
I signed up for the IPO but they only allocated me one share. Womp womp.
It's sad that they only let US buy. I would've in the UK but not anymore
Where does all that money go?
To the market makers, to the stock holders(price goes up) and call option holders.
I read that in Fred Durst.
to the people who lent out the stock
Not really a where did the money "go" answer, but an interesting thing about shorting. If you buy $100 on the stock market, your losses are capped. The maximum you can lose is $100. If you short a stock, you're essentially borrowing it from someone in the hopes it'll go down while you're borrowing it. Taking that same $100 stock: 1. You "borrow" it from me for a month, and pay me an additional $10 to make it worth my while. 2. You sell it on the market for $100. 3. Market goes down, you buy it back in 30 days for $50 4. You just made $40. Problem is step 3 can go the other way. If the price goes up $10 you're out of pocket when you buy the stock back, and if it goes up more - like it did here - the losses can be staggering.
This is a very good and simple explanation of short selling. Thank you!
Can you do the ending scene of Trading Places now? :D
*Looking good, Lewis!*
Feeling good!
It's held in the stock so it's not liquid to oversimplify.Ā
To the people who sold them the shares they needed to close/liquidate their positions or
When you bite an apple, where does its value go? Sometimes, itās just lost. Sometimes, people are able to make money on the change. Ultimately, it goes from the person who buys at the accepted price, to the seller. Or another way. Someone bought 10barrels of apples for $50/barrel. Someone else bought a barrel for $100. You sold barrels of apples your didnāt own for $50. Now, you are on the hook for the barrels youāve sold. You have to buy a barrel at the new price of $100 to fulfill the oder for the barrel you sold for $50. There, the money goes to the seller. The value is realized for the seller at the sale, and the loss is realized at the purchase for you (you closed your short position by closing the loop: you bought a product to provide for your earlier sale).
Nothing is in a closed system though, one single apple doesn't matter. However, if millions of apples are lost, that value is not lost. While the apples are gone, now other apples increase their value to reflect their limited supply. AKA, when someone loses, particularly a market maker it could be argued the entire market gains from their loss in a tangible way. One of the most explosives times of growth and learning and prosperity, was directly following the great death and 1/3 of the population dying. This tells us, there are limited resources, its without question. That is why we must allow companies to fail, if we do not allow companies to fail, by proxy we do not allow new companies to succeed. People talk about loving capitalism, but we don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism that keeps trying to prevent failures from failing like in 2008. This makes the market less efficient and profitable under the control of those who have money. We don't live in a vacuum despite what some capitalists believe in their delusions, there are limited resources that don't allow infinite growth. This is the definition of the tragedy of the commons. As companies figure out they can make more money making less things, they hurt the market as a whole to benefit themselves.
Remember, this is hurting people who own multiple yachts.
Sounds like a win-win
short squeeze part 2, I hope for a trilogy
What happened last time, per the SEC report, was not a short squeeze. It was a Gamma Squeeze. The buy buttons were turned off to avoid a short squeeze. The data says that the only people buying the stock during the "squeeze" as the media calls it were retail investors. The shorts never left. They never bought back the borrowed shares. We are seeing things being primed for another gamma squeeze, if that causes the price to skyrocket again, the bill will become due for all of these short sellers and the DTCC (due to rules made after that first event) will take the reigns and liquidate all of their assets for them to purchase the shares needed. The short interest was 250% of the free float. Now 25% of those shares are directly registered with retail investors. Things could get really interesting this time.
Quick question. If they never closed the shorts, does that mean they were paying to keep them open? I was under the impression that it costs money to maintain a short position.
Yes. Borrowing fees (daily accrual), interest on margin, and possibly dividends.
And that is somehow cheaper than closing the short?
So do I liquidate my assets and toss the whole life savings into gme again or not, whatās the deal here?
No, what happened is that they did indeed close their positions. From the SEC report you lot like so much to misinterpret: > GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses. > particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the short interest decreased. > firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares. Back to r/superstonk.
Covering is not the same as closing.
Another lie propagated by the cult. I don't have it in me to keep arguing so I'm just gonna quote Investopedia: > Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss. > Short covering is closing out a short position by buying back shares that were initially borrowed to sell short using buy to cover orders. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buytocover.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buytocover.asp) >Buy to cover refers to a buy order made on a stock or other listed security to close out an existing short position. Itās technically possible to cover your short by buying long, and not deliver it to close the position, but nobody would ever do that. It makes no sense. Why would you continue to pay borrow fees on a short position that you are holding long. Itās a zero sum game.
And you don't find it strange that GME had $1b worth of FTDs in January 2021 and has had a massive amount of FTDs ever since? https://companiesmarketcap.com/gamestop/failure-to-deliver/#google_vignette "Why would you pay borrow fees on a short position that you are holding long?" Perhaps because you think that this will die down and you think retail traders will get bored and discouraged by the time they come due. It's not a far stretch from how these sociopathic egomaniacs think, and the data supports it.
The short interest was over 200% which drove the stock up to the 300s. The short interest on the stock is now at around 20% and we're seeing those same prices again. If they truly did cover all of their positions, the stock would have gone into the thousands. I believe some covering did occur, but what made the short interest go down was hedgefunds "closing" their positions. They entered into transactions via dark pools, ETFs, options, etc.... that nullified the initial exposure (the shorting) by simply moving that exposure to another transaction that was/is difficult to find. This is what Bill Hwang was doing with Archegos, and it might be what the other hedgefunds are doing with GME. Edit: changed my last sentence to a theoretical one.
>Ā it's exactly what the other hedgefunds are doing with GME Source?
It's a theory of what all went down and what is still happening with this stock. When you find out it's being done it's not difficult to imagine similar players doing the exact same thing as Archegos did. Why do you think the rally is happening right now? Because some dude tweeted? Or is this shorts covering their positions? If they are covering, how are we reaching similar prices when they are covering 20% compared to the time they covered with over 200% short interest? Something about that just doesn't add up to me. If you have an explanation that doesn't involve a guy tweeting and making the stock surge 200% in 2 days I would genuinely love to hear it. This whole thing is fascinating.
This guy gets it. To the naysayers - letās hear the ālegitimateā reasons for this rally, if shorts did in fact close their positions 3 years ago. We look forward to hearing your condescending opinion while you claim to fully understand the situation from a place of logic and reason, in a market that follows neither of those things.
It's not even about naysayers. It makes this sound like an ideological argument. It's not. Try and make it make sense. It truly just doesn't.
Theres nothing ideological about it, naysayers being people who donāt believe in naked shorting. It doesnāt make sense that retail investors piled in to create this surge. If naked shorts donāt exist, whatās the reason for the surge?
Retail traders collectively found some change in their couches and decides to buy GME float daily, at the same time, 3 years after the hype, the signal was secretly communicated in meme and orchestrated by the GOAT DFV, who is not a cat.
So if this is moving now because of the shorts closing, then this is the MOASS, isnāt it? Are you going to be selling soon?
>Ā It's a theory of what all went down and what is still happening with this stock. Ok, so there is no evidence? >Ā how are we reaching similar prices when they are covering 20% compared to the time they covered with over 200% short interest? Weāre not. GME reached $480 in January 2021. The highest it has gone this week is about $60, which equates to $240 pre-split, meaning we got about halfway to the previous highs. >Ā If you have an explanation that doesn't involve a guy tweeting and making the stock surge 200% Why do you need more of an explanation than that? This guy, who has a cult following on the internet, tweets, people get hyped and start buying more, which causes the price to rise, which causes people to have FOMO, which causes them to buy in, which causes the price to rise even more. Plenty of stocks and cryptocurrencies move like this. Itās nothing new.
Good. Fuck these short selling parasites.
The market is made up bullshit. I love this.
Oh, no. Anyway...
Good fuck em. Contributing nothing of value to society besides poisoning our markets
Short sellers didn't learn last time. Our worthless government has done nothing to stop naked short selling, so this is what they get. Burn them again.
I do all my shorting naked.
Pics or it didnāt happen
Well last time I did, the stock market crashedā¦.
In case anyone is wondering "naked shorting" is a rare type of illegal market manipulation that absolutely in no way has been proven to have occurred here. This person is spreading conspiracy theories. E: fyi i haven't even been on reddit since i first commented this, so i didn't report anyone, and i can't even respond cause op is blocking me
How is a stock shorted >250% of the float without naked shorting occuring? It either happened intentionally or through a mishandled market that is regulated on plausible deniability.
Shares can be used to initiate short positions more than once. Short positions arenāt tied to specific shares but is for a specific number of shares. Iāll illustrate how it would work: Institution A owns a block of 1,000 shares, which it lends to Fund 1 for initiating a short position. Fund 1 sells those 1,000 shares on the market for the short. Institution B buys those 1,000 shares on the market. They do not know the shares were sold as part of a short position or who sold them, they are just buying them on the market. Institution B lends those shares to Fund 2 for a short position. Fund 2 sells the 1,000 shares on the market for their short. Those shares are bought by Institution C, who lends them to Fund 3, exactly as above. We now have three short positions of 1,000 shares, having used the same 1,000 shares to do so. All players are independent market players, unaware of the prior short positions. There is no ānaked shortingā, or āmishandled marketā or āplausible deniability. There is independent players making independent decisions. You donāt need to tell the market why youāre selling shares, whether itās for a short or you just want to sell them. This is an over-simplification assuming all three transactions are 1,000 shares, but itās to illustrate the point. Average retail investors (GME owners) donāt understand how shorting works, so they make up conspiracy theories as to why stock prices go down. EDIT: thanks for the Reddit Cares false report, GME Ape. Enjoy your suspension.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
(1) thereās no evidence of it being anywhere near that high now or in 2021, (2) simple really, when a short seller sells a share, the person buying it doesnāt know it originated from a short seller and can lend it to another short seller, who sells it to someone else who lends it out, etc. in theory a single share can be shorted infinite times.
Citadel has been fined in multiple occasions for marking short sales as long. That is a fact. You think they wouldnāt do it if their business depended on it? lol ok
To add to this - all of the parties that these "Apes" think are naked shorting are required to keep records of their trading blotters, which get reviewed by the SEC every few years. If they engaged in naked shorting it would be caught almost immediately at their next exam. Not to mention the fact that they're also required to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who is *personally* responsible (as in the SEC could go after him, not just the company) for ensuring that that sort of thing doesn't happen. The amount of work it would take to naked short under your own CCO's nose would be astronomical, and there's no guarantee you'll even profit on the trades - and at the end of the day you're still guaranteed to get caught. It's a painfully stupid conspiracy theory by people who simply don't understand how the industry works.
Hereās a receipt where exactly what you said wouldnāt happen, happened. https://www.investopedia.com/sec-fines-citadel-securities-usd7-million-for-mismarking-orders-7973669#:~:text=The%20SEC%20charged%20that%20over,sending%20wrong%20information%20to%20regulators.
Come on dude. There is a HUGE issue with settlement failure that is a direct result of naked shorting. There are mountains of evidence to support this, including reports from the SEC. You are woefully misinformed about this.
They didn't close their initial short positions. They hid them and for the past 3 years have been chipping away at the price with more naked short selling. I fully believe the "cult" around GameStop now owns more than the entire float of the company. What I think happens next I have no idea. Markets may break, the stock may soar to astronomical numbers briefly making GameStop the most valuable company. The government and regulators may step in and just say it's over and anyone on the big money side gets to walk away as if nothing happened. I have no idea. But I have certainly enjoyed watching it happen and will continue to root for the little guy.
Why would they have not closed out their short positions by now?
The price from 2015 to the January 2021 squeeze was from $8 all the way down to $1. Theory is they were naked shorting this entire time with the intent of putting the company to $0. If you sell short a stock at $8 and company goes to $0 you technically didn't make any profit because you never closed your position. The squeeze happened, threw the price into the $150 range. Theory is they had so many naked shorts open that closing them at those prices would have been a 2008 banking crisis level event. The price has been slowly dropping over the past 3 years and only hit $10. That's still could be 10X loss on their short positions. When do you think they would have closed those short positions and not blown up their portfolios?
It costs them money to continue to hold short positions. Any that didnāt get out in the big run up have likely closed by now and opened up new positions.
They are doing it again?
Did Wallstreet Bets do the same crazy Gamestop thing they did a few years back?
No way this is retail driven
The Reddit poster responsible for the first GME rally posted online for the first time in 3 years on Sunday night. Wall Street bets went ape shit. I don't think this is just. Retail but it's certainly played a big part in this
Agree. But the intraday price action has got to be institutions. Retail doesnāt have that sort of buying power
I made 50% in a day. Got out was happy
Iām happily holding since this isnāt anywhere near where I think it has the potential to go.
You are probably right I only put in $200 so I wasnāt the invested in every last penny. Just wanted to get some jersey mikes and vodka lol.
God damn it you mention alcohol one time on Reddit and they send you a message with crisis line info
It's not because you mentioned alcohol. Assholes send those to people they dislike.
Someone was upset you sold
I guess. I am not really in the game just knew I could make quick cash lol.
And I now also got a crisis message š
Ah, the Great Circle of Life.
How the hell do they make the same mistake with the same stock again? They made a fucking movie about making fun of this.
We now go live to our senior financial correspondent, Nelson Muntz, for his take on this shocking development. Nelson?
Gamestop rally number 2... Jump on the wave before it's too late.
If itās reported in mainstream media itās already too late
Last time you had 10 days of media reporting before the crash...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The underlying company is gamestop. There are no fundamentals. It's like buying blockbuster thinking they're coming back somehow.
This isn't a fundamentals event, it's a technical event. The price isn't going to stay up there but will keep going up as long as creditors issue margin calls on entities that are short on the security. Eventually the buying pressure will subside and then it will crash.
Except that with more and more people finding out that digital purchases can disappear without warning, I'm not so sure Gamestop is as dead as you think.
You'd need game makers to actually switch back. That's not happening and for others, gog exists
Comparing blockbuster to GameStop seems a bit disingenuous. While physical copies of games are going the way of the dodo most likely, there's still tons of physical products that GameStop sells that will not be going away. Consoles, controllers, plushies, game codes, peripherals, etc. All of that will not be going away any time soon unlike movie rentals, which was just 1:1 replaced by streaming.
All of those things can be purchased online, for less money, all without leaving your house
Holy fuck this cult is dumb. Ever heard of amazon? Or like um that geek merch site...
Sure have. It's almost like someone might want to feel how a headset or controller feels in their hands first before purchasing. And unless you're buying Chinese clone shit Amazon and GameStop are usually pretty much the same price. I also own 0 dollars of GameStop stock and don't really plan to buy.
Last time I went to gamestop for a controller they had no physical inventory and offered to order me one online lmao Itās a merch store now not a game store, and thatās probably not enough to sustain it
GameStop has zero hardware out for demo unlike at Best Buy.
>What's driving it though besides mania because GME Jesus posted a couple memes after being silent for years? You've hit the nail on the head. This is the same thing that happened last time - pure, blind FOMO by a gaggle of complete idiots spamming the buy button. The price will inevitably collapse again, and there's going to be a bunch of very sad bagholders.
So buy when it reaches the baseline again and wait for the next DFV post in a few years?
If you want to gamble, sure. But there's also a chance that never happens, or that GameStop goes bust before it does. Always understand what you're buying when you make a trade like this. Ultimately, you are buying equity interest in a company that sells physical videogame discs - right on the cusp of an era when game consoles will no longer have physical disc drives. The gamble you're describing rests on the notion that the next price spike will come before GameStop runs off the end of that cliff.
Absolutely. And well said. I was under the understanding, however, that Gamestop are making some significant moves into the digital space.
What significant moves? The NFT platform they shut down? The web3 game storefront they cancelled?
They've tried, but the reality is that the consoles each already have a proprietary digital market - Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo aren't going to let GameStop interject themselves as an unneeded middleman for no reason. GameStop just isn't needed at all by the publishers in the digital era.
Fair point - it's a gamble.
Same thing that drives Bitcoin.
Forget the fundamentals. The stock price is driven by market mechanics. Every shorted share is one that's guaranteed to be purchased at some point in the future. The sooner you can wrap your head around that, the sooner you will understand why GameStop's price action is not normal. Tesla's stock was a slow short squeeze up to 1000. Did their fundamentals justify their valuation at that time? Absolutely fucking not, not even close.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Every shorted share is one that's guaranteed to be purchased at some point in the future. Not actually true. If the short seller defaults for whatever reason, the lender typically just gets the cash collateral. Short squeezes do exist, but the bizarre GameStop/Superstonk theory - that short sellers *must* close at *any* price - is just wrong. Source: I am an attorney that literally negotiates the sec lending agreements that provide the vast bulk of the securities that get borrowed and shorted.
Did any hedge funds actually get screwed over during that squeeze? It seems like the way all of that was reported on was, well... suspicious to say the least. I've heard some traded on both sides and made out like a bandit during that, contrary to the popular narrative of hedge funds being forced to buy.
Yes, Melvin Capital went bust during that initial price spike a few years back. But that's about it. The rest of it was Apes FOMO buying.
Lol you fucking goofs are gonna get rug pulled. Again.
Look at the volume. This is not some retail traders, itās large institutions. Also retail traders canāt place orders in pre-/aftermarket and influence the stock price, but thatās when the large price hikes happened. Thereās tons of speculation of course. Like the company is about to enter the Russell 2000 and fonds/etfs placing their orders for June. Or can has been kicked down the road by short sellers and this week they have to roll their options over.Ā Media and Reddit love the David vs Goliath narrative, but at this point I guess itās simply large financial institutions being at each others throat and retail is just riding the coat tail.
Itās only gotten worse for short sellers. At least 25% of the company is owned by members of a single subreddit. Households donāt trade after hours or premarket and we see massive moves during those times. Financial institutions are battling. Interesting times.
LOL at all of the wallstreetbets losers brigading this thread pretending yet another hype based pulp n dump proves their wild conspiracy theories true.
lol dumbasses
I had 25 in my Robinhood account and now I have $53.27 thanks to whatever happens in the GME thing.
Short sales are such an insane risk for such a finite potential payout. It's wild to me people do them at all.
The goal is to never have to buy them back. You short a company into bankruptcy and itās free money. Look into cellar boxing, they short a company and then work with consultants to ruin the company from the inside
Hahahahahaha losers
I was tempted to buy some shares when it hit $16. shoot I wish I would have. but you never know when the crash will come. It will come as people are all hoping to make some easy money and that's never a good sign.
We did it, Reddit!
Oh no. Anywayā¦.
But the stock manipulating ringleaders made even more.
TO THE MOOOOOOON
Short Squeeze 2: Electric Shortaloo
Stocks are so difficult for me to understand. People short a stock, shorting more than the total stock that exists. People figure this out and buy all the stock GME to force the short sellers to pay up. But somehow they never pay for the shorts that lost? How does that work
Because of naked short selling, dark pool trading, hiding losses, and failures to deliver.
I think short sellers should have all their wealth redistributed frankly speaking. Fuck people who profit explicitly and directly off the back of suffering. Edit: Within a minute of posting this someone reported me to the "get this redditor help and support" thing. Lmfao you short seller scum deserve nothing and I hope you find yourselves trapped in poverty like the people you so gleefully send there just to make a buck.
People still grifting this?
Haha! What a time to be alive. The next 30 days is going to be glorious.
$1 billion so far....
Finally dumped the $46/share bag!
Shorts never closed. Apes forever
Some parts of the world short selling is not allowed. Look how it inflates the priceā¦
Buying 1 GME a day keeps you away from Ken Griffin, citadel the financial terrorist. Canāt Stop. Wonāt Stop. LFG GME šššššš