Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 7 pts 4y

the entire system comes to a grinding halt EVERYTIME...so long as we all organize.

everytime.

[–] • 1 pt 4y

So long as we organize AND they continue to play by the rules. They will do no such thing; and suffer no consequences for it.

[–] • 7 pts 4y

Thanks for posting this. I logged on to a shot gun blast of people losing their shorts memes and game stop shit, didn't know what was going on so I read some posts and watched some vids but this really clarified.

[–] • 1 pt 4y

You're welcome, HH.

[–] • 5 pts 4y

The company that went massively short partly would contribute to the losses since they sold off all the stock they shorted. Since a lot of people are in the stock market just to ride waves, they would sell as the price dropped, further pushing it down. Then the Reddit people buying a lot pushed the price up. If they all want to sell now to rake in their profit, the price will drop again.

It all reeks of people wanting something for nothing.

In theory shorting makes sense. The holder believes it won't drop, hence wanting the stock more than whatever it's worth in the short term. The shorter believes it will drop and takes the risk that it doesn't. It's the reverse of investing in a company; it's investing in their decline. Still all of it seems like money games rather than actual work.

[–] • 2 pts 4y

It all reeks of people wanting something for nothing.

Yes, that's the stock market in a nutshell.

[–] • 0 pt 4y

Charitably it could be seen as a way to own parts of companies as assets, rather than holding money in dollars that (((they))) constantly rob of value.

[–] • 2 pts 4y

Especially when the hedge funds gamble with other peoples 'retirement fund investments' to then turn around and cry foul, pure parasites ...

[–] • 1 pt 4y

Or anyone. "Hey everyone, buy this and its price will rise and you can make a profit."

[–] • 2 pts 4y (edited 4y)

Yea sort of a Ponzi scheme in that regard - the later you get in, the more likely you are to get stuck holding the bill. Because people that got in early will pay the least and therefore (should) sell the earliest, seeing the largest gains. People who get in later pay more and see smaller gains, so will likely hold longer to squeeze whatever small profit they can. Those who get in last (at the peak of the price curve) stand to lose a lot of money.

[–] • 3 pts 4y

It shows how weak the ruling class really is. How stupid they actually are. How they need special rules to survive because nature would have otherwise wiped out these parasites.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts 4y

I still don't see what benefit the lending entity gets from all of that. They lend a stock out for the hedge fund to short, then get those stocks back. What's in it for whoever is lending the stocks in the first place?

[–] • 0 pt 4y

Not sure, and this all new to me too, but I can see how the stock lender may benefit from lending the stock out to a short seller, the sort seller takes all the financial risk, the stock lender will always get his stock back, albeit higher or lower in value but the lender didn't need to use their money, only the short puts up that risk.

I could be wrong, but something along those lines.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt 4y

Yea.. after thinking about it, all I can think is it's just higher level gambling. They could either win or lose, but they still move stocks

[–] • 2 pts 4y

You actually think a bunch of redditors can change the value of a stock by billions? It's likely mostly the work of other funds just removing competitors

[–] • 1 pt 4y

Oh, we should have no doubt that there were some other players involved here. I have a friend that went in on GME early and he explained the situation to me. Immediately I thought: if I were a manager of a competing hedge fund (or just a really wealthy individual investor) who knew what Melvin was doing with its short position, how easy would it be to utilize social platforms to squeeze my competition? How hard would it be to go on Reddit and establish a reputation quickly (employment history, portfolio worth, etc.) and just convince a lot of people to buy GME?

We've entered meme financing.

There was a guy on r/wallstreetbets who was pushing this squeeze who had something like a $50 million in GME when it peaked the other day. Apparently he frequently posts pictures of his portfolio. He initially went in $250k and another $500k a few days later. This squeeze was not simply all a bunch of retards with $1500 stim checks to blow.

[–] • 1 pt 4y

Was wondering about that myself. Doesn’t add up. Something else is at play here. Nothing in this age and time is ever as it seems, especially if msm is setting the narrative.

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts 4y
[–] • 1 pt 4y

I dont have a dog in the fight here but im fuessing if they dont play by the rules these guys have board meeting or luve somewherr....

[–] • 1 pt 4y

Excellent explanation. Watching the government step in to stop this from happening should red pill a few more less politically motivated normies.

[–] • 1 pt 4y

This is only half the story, the other half is the further abstraction of 'options' contracts allowing you to short without an actual transfer and sale of stock.

In the case of GME the naked options contracts "owed" 130% of the GME stock available for purchase, aka impossible to cover. Making it ripe for a 'short squeeze' or 'bear raid'.

[–] • 2 pts 4y

This is only half the story, the other half is the further abstraction of 'options' contracts allowing you to short without an actual transfer and sale of stock.

What's missing from the original story is why a broker would allow a shorter to "borrow" the stock in the first place. What does he get out of it? Does he charge a fee?

[–] • 0 pt 4y

It is as retarded as it is complex.

The reason they allow it is there is a cost for an option contract, a fee as you say, so they make money on allowing your bet. Under the covers, they usually have some of the stock and never sell it they just give you the $ value, OR they have no stock and place their own bet against your position. So they make the fee, and if the stock goes up and they had it, they never sold it ($++), and if the stock goes down and they never had it they placed an opposite bet to cover their "loss" ($++).

There is almost no way to lose in a normal situation for them, unless they get too greedy in the second scenario (the one where they have no stock) and they place their bets with other "clearing houses" that _also_ hold little to no stock.

Load more (8 replies)