Mr_Asa said:Just in case you guys are interested, a different group of redditards think that Dogecoin is going to go to $1 per coin.
I bought $50 worth on Jan 2nd, its already doubled
When I posted this, Dogecoin was at about $0.0165 per coin.
Now it is at $0.037 ish. Peak so far today was $0.044, that's ~275% growth today
In reply to eastsideTim :
Shorting works by borrowing shares with the promise to return those shares at a future date, and paying a small fee for doing so. The entity that borrowed the shares then sells them in the hopes they will buy them back at a lower price before they need to return them. So, those shares are then recycled back into the market.
The original (?) owner receives a small fee for doing this and gets the stock back at a lower value. What is the upside for the original owner?
In the Game Stop saga the original owner could have been left with worthless stock in a bankrupt company.
Why would anyone agree to this? Please enlighten me.
noddaz said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Shorting works by borrowing shares with the promise to return those shares at a future date, and paying a small fee for doing so. The entity that borrowed the shares then sells them in the hopes they will buy them back at a lower price before they need to return them. So, those shares are then recycled back into the market.
The original (?) owner receives a small fee for doing this and gets the stock back at a lower value. What is the upside for the original owner?
In the Game Stop saga the original owner could have been left with worthless stock in a bankrupt company.
Why would anyone agree to this? Please enlighten me.
The fee helps solvency, and they hope that moving the stock will help them make money? At a guess
With this action, Gamestop is going to be doing great for a couple years provided they don't completely screw the pooch.
noddaz said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Shorting works by borrowing shares with the promise to return those shares at a future date, and paying a small fee for doing so. The entity that borrowed the shares then sells them in the hopes they will buy them back at a lower price before they need to return them. So, those shares are then recycled back into the market.
The original (?) owner receives a small fee for doing this and gets the stock back at a lower value. What is the upside for the original owner?
In the Game Stop saga the original owner could have been left with worthless stock in a bankrupt company.
Why would anyone agree to this? Please enlighten me.
The upside for the original owner is they are assuming the stock isn't going to fail, or are holding for a long term, so they get a bit of money just for having the stock.
93EXCivic said:alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:STM317 said:What should retirements be based on in your opinion? How should companies raise funding if not selling stock, and who should/shouldn't be allowed to invest in companies?
Pension? Where the employer has a fund that they guarantee to be there when you retire? That used to be the only way. And there are plenty of employers who still use that, who have no stock to sell, or can even invest in companies.
Then someone invented the 401k, and people pretended that they can do better than a good pension fund. When the long term data has consistently shown that a no load set of index funds have done better for the investor (growth-fees) than active funds.
IMHO, the loss of the golden handcuffs/pensions has lead to a MASSIVE turn over problem in companies. Which has lead to higher wages for those who change jobs, and costing more money to keep training people who are new to jobs- even when they have experience. I stayed because I wanted my pension- but now that it's not an option, people come and go at will. So much time and money wasted because of that.
WRT the whole issue of stock trading- that's just a massive frustration to me. It's just gambling, and should be treated as such.
I disagree. You can always stay at a company. If they want to keep you, they need to make it worth your while.
On the other hand, the portability of the 401k not only works to the advantage of the employee, it relieves the employer of the liability / burden of managing their own pension fund.
Mr_Asa said:noddaz said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Shorting works by borrowing shares with the promise to return those shares at a future date, and paying a small fee for doing so. The entity that borrowed the shares then sells them in the hopes they will buy them back at a lower price before they need to return them. So, those shares are then recycled back into the market.
The original (?) owner receives a small fee for doing this and gets the stock back at a lower value. What is the upside for the original owner?
In the Game Stop saga the original owner could have been left with worthless stock in a bankrupt company.
Why would anyone agree to this? Please enlighten me.
The fee helps solvency, and they hope that moving the stock will help them make money? At a guess
With this action, Gamestop is going to be doing great for a couple years provided they don't completely screw the pooch.
Except GameStop doesn't actually have those shares to sell. They got their money in the IPO, and in any other offerings that expanded the number of existing shares. Market capitalization does tend to have other benefits, like easier access to loans, which GameStop may need to keep operating if they can't start turning a profit soon.
Game Shop is up a lot in after hours trading ,
I do not think anyone actually cares about Game shop , they are just trying to screw the short sellers ,
But maybe this is not a great idea , having Reddit run the world ! Who knows what they will aim at next ?
In reply to californiamilleghia :
Nonsense, the karma system is wonderful.
In reply to eastsideTim :
The upside for the original owner is they are assuming the stock isn't going to fail, or are holding for a long term, so they get a bit of money just for having the stock.
I am still confused. Someone has 5000 shares of a marginal stock that may or may not be overvalued.
Then a hedge fund comes calling and wants you to loan it to them for a small fee. If you owned that marginal, possibly overvalued stock wouldn't that set off alarm bells? Two weeks ago I knew nothing of this. I don't know much more than that now. Somehow there must be more going on here.
In reply to Duke :
Being able to move a 401k is only good if one actually uses it. And that's the issue with the 401k.
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/average-401k-balance#:~:text=The%20average%20401(k)%20balance%20is%20%2492%2C148%2C%20according%20to,Americans%20have%20saved%20for%20retirement.
While the average 401K is over $90k, the median is 22k. Which means that 50% of the people who have 401k's have less than $22k in the account.
Whereas a pension is filled by a company without the person doing anything. And the above data suggest that companies don't contribute much to their employee retirement.
I'm fully on board that a 401k is a very powerful tool. But it has to be actively managed by the owner- putting money in constantly.
I'd rather see a combo system that I have- in the 30 years, my pension one time payout will be remarkably close to my 401k value. Closer than I expected. Combine the two means I can retire at 55. Even with the pension reaching it's highest value in 5 more years.
noddaz said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Shorting works by borrowing shares with the promise to return those shares at a future date, and paying a small fee for doing so. The entity that borrowed the shares then sells them in the hopes they will buy them back at a lower price before they need to return them. So, those shares are then recycled back into the market.
The original (?) owner receives a small fee for doing this and gets the stock back at a lower value. What is the upside for the original owner?
In the Game Stop saga the original owner could have been left with worthless stock in a bankrupt company.
Why would anyone agree to this? Please enlighten me.
Because maybe they're betting the stock will go up instead of down. If it does, they win.
californiamilleghia said:Game Shop is up a lot in after hours trading ,
I do not think anyone actually cares about Game shop , they are just trying to screw the short sellers ,
This, exactly. A huge amount of people are angry over their friends and family losing damn near everything in '08. They are excited about making money, but they are damn sure in this for revenge for their loved ones.
I can't tell you how many stories of people eating "tomato soup" made from McD's ketchup packets, eating rice and beans for a year, moving in with relatives, and other stories of '08 I've seen in r/wallstreetbets this past 3-4 days
noddaz said:In reply to eastsideTim :
The upside for the original owner is they are assuming the stock isn't going to fail, or are holding for a long term, so they get a bit of money just for having the stock.
I am still confused. Someone has 5000 shares of a marginal stock that may or may not be overvalued.
Then a hedge fund comes calling and wants you to loan it to them for a small fee. If you owned that marginal, possibly overvalued stock wouldn't that set off alarm bells? Two weeks ago I knew nothing of this. I don't know much more than that now. Somehow there must be more going on here.
Generally it's all arms length and handled by the broker and exchange, so you don't know who wants to short the stock. Not to mention, it's a bit oversimplified in the above example. If you open a margin account (allowing you to borrow money to buy shares), the agreement with the brokerage may allow them to lend out shares you own, so you may have no idea they've been lent out, and the brokerage gets the fee. They are also on the hook, though, if the short seller can't produce the shares.
It's a complicated mess, and it's also why I stay away from anything related to margin accounts. The rewards can be high, but the risks are commensurate to those increased rewards.
Edit: it's also a way for the brokerage to mitigate some of the risk of you not being able to cover losses in a margin account. Say you buy 10 shares of CA on 10 to 1 margin, and it drops by 50% and you can't cover the losses. At least the brokerage made some additional money lending the shares.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Welp
One of the problems with the 401k is that it is largely at the mercy of hubris laden shiny happy people who tanked the market in '08 and 2000 and 87 and etc. Sure, normal people got greedy, but the real money was from Wall Street. And which normal people got bailed out after 2008? But the E36 M3ty thing is that the market is the only real game in town for your 401k and even your boring vanguard index fund will get beat up next time some new method of greed explodes.
Mr_Asa said:californiamilleghia said:Game Shop is up a lot in after hours trading ,
I do not think anyone actually cares about Game shop , they are just trying to screw the short sellers ,
This, exactly. A huge amount of people are angry over their friends and family losing damn near everything in '08. They are excited about making money, but they are damn sure in this for revenge for their loved ones.
I can't tell you how many stories of people eating "tomato soup" made from McD's ketchup packets, eating rice and beans for a year, moving in with relatives, and other stories of '08 I've seen in r/wallstreetbets this past 3-4 days
I got too move back in with my dad while my wife and children moved in with her mom. That crash pretty much ruined my life for 2 years. Turns out motorcycles aren't a hot commodity when people are starving. I don't invest but I'm enjoying all of this!
TSLA didn't drop enough to trigger my Limit buy today. The money is sitting with Robinhood, who also stopped me from buying more AAL today because it was suspended along with the GME, NOK, AMC... trades. They pissed me off. Tomorrow it all goes in on GME and if they stop that, Everything transfers to another brokerage.
Unrelated sort-of: DOGE is now over .06. Over 350% gain today and climbing vertical at the moment. It was just a silly thing: "DOGE to $1.00!" I think it's actually going to happen.
Edit: When I stated posting it was bumping $0.06. After posting it's now over $0.08! 550% gain. ...Doge to $1.00!!!
People are alleging that Robinhood is locking them out of their accounts and selling off all their GME stock without consent. If true, uh, holy E36 M3. Things are about to get wild.
If this is true I think a lot of people will be visiting the Nottingham jail!
In reply to NickD :
W.T.F. ?!? How illegal is it to sell somebody's securities without their permission?
NickD said:People are alleging that Robinhood is locking them out of their accounts and selling off all their GME stock without consent. If true, uh, holy E36 M3. Things are about to get wild.
I don't know that I fully believe that because 4chan
There were reputable accounts of people that were getting their shares sold, but it was a specific series of things that allowed it.
Apparently RH allows "instant money" to be used to buy. Instant money is when you transfer money into an account, RH gives you coverage for that up to $2500 so you can buy immediately. If you use this instant money to buy you are open to their terms and conditions (which i have not looked into)
And now the bots. Will scrape wsb. Aggregate apply sentiment through language processing and it's now stock tips to the hedge funds.
https://www.ft.com/content/04477ee8-0af2-4f0f-a331-2987444892c3
golden goose choked.
I'm a hardcore Boglehead, so never bothered learning much about this stuff.
If both squeezes have happened (short and gamma), how is this different than a pump and dump scheme?
What happens a week from now when GME is 1k a share and largely owned by retail investors?
You'll need to log in to post.
