Shorted Stocks

Timing belt

VinLieger wrote: »

Then why not plainly say that? Surely at this stage after all that happened yesterday they know it would gain them at least some of the support back that theyve lost as it still speaks to the one rule for the rich and another for the rest argument

They did say that at a high level.... Why do you think some of the brokers said you could still trade as long as you posted collateral.

VinLieger

Timing belt wrote: »

They did say that at a high level.... Why do you think some of the brokers said you could still trade as long as you posted collateral.

But many other brokers allowed you to still trade as normal freetrade, degiro, ameritrade, revolut to name some of the few i heard of, are they magically not subject to the same regs? Theres big gaps in this theory that dont make sense.

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

Then why did all the retail brokers lie about managing risk for customers? Like they all used exactly the same line practically verbatim, if it was to do with rules etc especially those in place that help wall st and they admitted that nobody would blame them yet they still lied.

What????


You can't protect people from themselves. I don't see who you come to the idea that brokers should protect you from the risks of the market, you trade on your own account, not under the supervision of anyone.



There are plenty of warnings to individual investors not to get involved in this kind of thing. But if people choose to do so and do it with reading the T&C, the rules etc... there is not much we can do about it.



The alternative would be to assume that adults are not able to act in their own best interests and come up with some system where adults must qualify to act as adults.


Depending on this pans out, we may see a lot of restrictions on shorting going forward. If it were up to me I'd outlaw the practice completely.

VinLieger

Jim2007 wrote: »

What????


You can't protect people from themselves. I don't see who you come to the idea that brokers should protect you from the risks of the market, you trade on your own account, not under the supervision of anyone.



There are plenty of warnings to individual investors not to get involved in this kind of thing. But if people choose to do so and do it with reading the T&C, the rules etc... there is not much we can do about it.



The alternative would be to assume that adults are not able to act in their own best interests and come up with some system where adults must qualify to act as adults.


Depending on this pans out, we may see a lot of restrictions on shorting going forward. If it were up to me I'd outlaw the practice completely.

I think your misunderstanding me, they stopped allowing people to trade specific stocks under the guise of protecting customers from risk.

This was a lie.

Timing belt

VinLieger wrote: »

But many other brokers allowed you to still trade as normal freetrade, degiro, ameritrade, revolut to name some of the few i heard of, are they magically not subject to the same regs? Theres big gaps in this theory that dont make sense.

Because each of these brokers will have a different set up for clearing and may have collateral already pledged to ensure that there trading would not be interrupted.

For example degiro will provide a full service with all the bells and whistles but they will charge you for it.

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres big gaps in this theory that dont make sense.

That would be the theory of not read the T&C of your account and just assuming that everything is the same. Which it most certainly is not.



I have not doubt that many of the people signing up for accounts do so without bothering to go over the fine print and happily agree to the broker lending out their positions, accepting routing commissions on trades, retros on funds etc as a result.

VinLieger

Timing belt wrote: »

Because each of these brokers will have a different set up for clearing and may have collateral already pledged to ensure that there trading would not be interrupted.

For example degiro will provide a full service with all the bells and whistles but they will charge you for it.

Jim2007 wrote: »

That would be the theory of not read the T&C of your account and just assuming that everything is the same. Which it most certainly is not.



I have not doubt that many of the people signing up for accounts do so without bothering to go over the fine print and happily agree to the broker lending out their positions, accepting routing commissions on trades, retros on funds etc as a result.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, there is way too much coincidence about what happened yesterday in my opinion especially if its true that Citadel reloaded their shorts. Maybe you are right i guess we will find out soon.

Timing belt

Jim2007 wrote: »

Depending on this pans out, we may see a lot of restrictions on shorting going forward. If it were up to me I'd outlaw the practice completely.

Shorting is an important tool for hedging would hate to see it outlawed.

Timing belt

VinLieger wrote: »

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, there is way too much coincidence about what happened yesterday in my opinion especially if its true that Citadel reloaded their shorts. Maybe you are right i guess we will find out soon.

Which entity/Division in Citadel? They have different entities/divisions for this very reason and have fire walls between them so no info can be used when it shouldn't be.

Every telephone call, email, instant message is recorded and monitored for their traders.... They aren't even allowed phones or smart watches at the Trading desks because it would be unmonitored.

VinLieger

Timing belt wrote: »

Shorting is an important tool for hedging would hate to see it outlawed.

I dont like it but can understand why its neccessary to some extent however surely you can agree shorting a company to 139% is absurd and needs to be no longer possible?

VinLieger

Timing belt wrote: »

Which entity/Division in Citadel? They have different entities/divisions for this very reason and have fire walls between them so no info can be used when it shouldn't be.

Every telephone call, email, instant message is recorded and monitored for their traders.... They aren't even allowed phones or smart watches at the Trading desks because it would be unmonitored.

I don't know the specifics its just been reported as Citadel reloading their shorts and again it may not be true that it happened at all, if more comes out to prove there was no corruption ill happily accept that.

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

I think your misunderstanding me, they stopped allowing people to trade specific stocks under the guise of protecting customers from risk.

This was a lie.

It's a lie because you say so......


You don't seem to appreciate just how dangerous this situation really is. And yes by allowing you to dispose of your holding while preventing you from adding to it, is protecting a lot of people from getting in way above their heads.


It is going to upset a lot of people, but it is not a bad way to defuse the situation.

VinLieger

Jim2007 wrote: »

It's a lie because you say so......


You don't seem to appreciate just how dangerous this situation really is. And yes by allowing you to dispose of your holding while preventing you from adding to it, is protecting a lot of people from getting in way above their heads.


It is going to upset a lot of people, but it is not a bad way to defuse the situation.

I completely understand how dangerous it is but its not a brokers job to manage customers risk in this way they are not financial advisors.

The very fact they have changed their tunes this morning shows it up to be a lie.

Also it was a terrible way to diffuse the situation as it just proved the point many felt was being made already that once the retail investors start winning the big boys will just changed the rules.

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't know the specifics its just been reported as Citadel reloading their shorts and again it may not be true that it happened at all, if more comes out to prove there was no corruption ill happily accept that.

But in the mean time without evidence, you'll assume there was....

VinLieger

Jim2007 wrote: »

But in the mean time without evidence, you'll assume there was....

Did i say that? If you check my post you will see I said "if its true that Citadel reloaded their shorts"

Many on here have been claiming all kinds of things without evidence are you going to now go and police them too?

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

I completely understand how dangerous it is but its not a brokers job to manage customers risk in this way they are not financial advisors.

The very fact they have changed their tunes this morning shows it up to be a lie.

Also it was a terrible way to diffuse the situation as it just proved the point many felt was being made already that once the retail investors start winning the big boys will just changed the rules.

How were the retail investors going to win? It was a frenzy started by some random group (may be even organized by rival funds for all we know) with the objective of inflicting pain on the hedge funds. Nothing about making money, at least not for the average Joe. This was always going to blow and the small investor was always going to end up carrying the can.


If the basic assumption that the funds must cover their position regardless of the cost is not true for the most part.

VinLieger

Jim2007 wrote: »

How were the retail investors going to win? It was a frenzy started by some random group (may be even organized by rival funds for all we know) with the objective of inflicting pain on the hedge funds. Nothing about making money, at least not for the average Joe. This was always going to blow and the small investor was always going to end up carrying the can.


If the basic assumption that the funds must cover their position regardless of the cost is not true for the most part.

If the short sellers have to cover their positions starting from today and it does spike then how do they not win? Also even if some people lose their money the hedge funds involved in shorting gamestop to 139% get a kicking which they definitely deserve for being arrogant crooks and in my book that's a win for everyone.

TBH you seem to be coming from a very pro-capitalism at all costs point of view so i'm not sure if there's any point in engaging anymore, if your willing to be less antagonistic then ill continue.

drunkmonkey

Jim2007 wrote: »

If the basic assumption that the funds must cover their position regardless of the cost is not true for the most part.

So how do the shorts get out of this pickle. Pay up? Government bail out?
The price target for GME is $69,420 at the moment.

VinLieger

Even if it is the case that the problem is the system not being built or prepared to handle the number of shares being traded at this high a price then isn't that still the fault of the hedge funds who shorted to 139% and left themselves exposed to this happening?

TheW1zard

What price do yee think wall street sold at. What is their position?
What does it need to get back to?

TheW1zard

pre market 420 now

Ush1

Jim2007 wrote: »

How were the retail investors going to win? It was a frenzy started by some random group (may be even organized by rival funds for all we know) with the objective of inflicting pain on the hedge funds. Nothing about making money, at least not for the average Joe. This was always going to blow and the small investor was always going to end up carrying the can.


If the basic assumption that the funds must cover their position regardless of the cost is not true for the most part.

No it wasn't, you clearly haven't followed the story. It was about making money at the start.

daheff

Jim2007 wrote: »

How were the retail investors going to win? It was a frenzy started by some random group (may be even organized by rival funds for all we know) with the objective of inflicting pain on the hedge funds. .

I think you've answered your own question there Jim.

It's essentially about people who have been on the ****ty end of the stick for a long time getting to turn the stick around for a change and are trying to make the most of the rare opportunity.

They then see the brokers & hedge funds pulling out as many dirty tricks as they can and that's just making them more determined not to let go.


If the shorts weren't so arrogant and tried to cover their losses a lot earlier and the brokers didn't stop buy trades we wouldn't be at this point.

The average punter can see this for what it is...and they don't like it one bit. For most this is their once in a lifetime opportunity to get a win.

Ush1

DeepF*ckinValue invested initially because he felt the stock was under valued. Despite losses they had good cash reserves and we're restructuring for digital commerce. Cohen also came on board who is obviously a very credible business man.

The whole point was that the shorting by the funds was seen as unfair and trying to bury the business which had potential, in their eyes. It was the same as Tesla and that's why Elon got involved.

So it changed from a cigar butt of sorts to revenge type play at all costs.

timmyntc

Retail investors would win in the event of a "short squeeze" where hedge funds have to close their shorts and buy at any price which for a 140% short would push the share prices way up.

Like VW in 2008

Shedite27

Retail Investors only win if they get out at more than the price they paid for something.

There'll be some folk who buy at the top, be that $300, $600, $900 that will lose a lot.

timmyntc

Shedite27 wrote: »

Retail Investors only win if they get out at more than the price they paid for something.

There'll be some folk who buy at the top, be that $300, $600, $900 that will lose a lot.

Well yeah - thats kind of a given. Someone has to lose for someone else to win.
People buying GME are doing so on the assumption that by buying and holding GME, it will make it harder for Shorters to close out their position and when they do start to buy the price will shoot up and most retail would sell.

It's a game of who blinks first though, small price fluctuations can scare a lot of retail into selling prematurely and help Shorters to close out, but with the volume of outstanding shorts there is a long way to go yet

VinLieger

Shedite27 wrote: »

Retail Investors only win if they get out at more than the price they paid for something.

There'll be some folk who buy at the top, be that $300, $600, $900 that will lose a lot.

It depends on your definition of winning, if its profit then your correct but for many its also about fvcking the hedge funds who for decades have capitalised of others misfortune and in fact many times encouraged and triggered it. Now the game they enjoy to win at has been turned around on them and people are enjoying watching it happen, for many thats a win in itself.

Cute Hoor

I think a lot of people, all around the world, have decided to join the party for a minimal investment and aren’t too bothered if they lose most of it, obviously want to win but being part of the gang that puts it up to the big guys (who to be fair were cruising carelessly and ultimately caught with their pants down around the ankles) is as much part of the fun as winning. The guy from Webull on CNBC yesterday said that they have had a significant number of new ‘investors’ since this all kicked off, you can see it here, and I’m sure that is being replicated around the world.

Mad_maxx

id be tempted to go short not long after the open today myself , can easily see it dropping by $200 at some stage