-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
GME and AMC stock action (out of main)
- Thread starter Electroman
- Start date
Our European brothers doing work. I actually picked up the AMC I have at $18 the day before it dropped to $9, then the following day it rose back to $13. I'm going to just hold these 1,000 shares of AMC and see what happens haha.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
The Motley Fool is run by smart people. But they have a bunch of writers who provide a variety of viewpoints. You can look at what these writers say about Tesla if you need any convincing that they're a bunch of ignoramuses.
That was a bombshell...
Elon: So why did it happen?
Robinhood CEO: some BS
Elon: uh... aaaaallllright....
Elon: So why did it happen?
Robinhood CEO: some BS
Elon: uh... aaaaallllright....
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Elon talking on Clubhouse. Vlad from RH comes on for the last 20 mins. Reasonable excuse for his behaviour involving NSCC requesting $3Bn... Elon lets him off the hook but is not left satisfied.
$AMC squeezing nicely in pre-pre-market. I hope this holds-up until the main bell so I can see come CC's...
Typical pattern last week on these stock was a big bump early, when most retail have no access, then falling back somewhat.
Typical pattern last week on these stock was a big bump early, when most retail have no access, then falling back somewhat.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Lol! Forbes rewrites List of 5 Richest People in the World:
- Elon Musk
- Jeff Bezos
- Bill Gates
- Warren Buffet
- retard6969
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
If he had to lock out buying by retail, then he should have simultaneously locked out selling by hedgefunds. Instead, what he did lead to a $400 drop in shareprice in 40 min on Thu morning. Unjustifiable, given that he knew in advance that is what his action would cause.
Unethical AF.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Uh, no. FTD reports from Dec 2020 show about 6 MILLION undelivered shares, back when the SP was about avg of just $17 bux (now it >350, or 20x higher!)
This massive amount of FTD's wouldn't happen if these extra short sale trades when through the Clearing Houses normally. This is NAKED SHORTING. That's why the shares couldn't be located, thus generating the FTD report.
Here's the FTD data from Dec:
Robinhood was far from the only one. Funny how our financial system can handle millions of high speed transactions from bots but a few hundred thousand random people almost cause it to crash.
@Artful Dodger
I may have taken too simplistic a look at the FTD data
the SEC has "qualifiers" that seem to cloud the numbers a lot, possibly deliberately
(never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity, sometimes)
quote below
SEC.gov | Fails-to-Deliver Data
-----------snip--------------
Fails to deliver on a given day are a cumulative number of all fails outstanding until that day, plus new fails that occur that day, less fails that settle that day.
The figure is not a daily amount of fails, but a combined figure that includes both new fails on the reporting day as well as existing fails.
In other words, these numbers reflect aggregate fails as of a specific point in time, and may have little or no relationship to yesterday's aggregate fails.
Thus, it is important to note that the age of fails cannot be determined by looking at these numbers.
In addition, the underlying source(s) of the fails-to-deliver shares is not necessarily the same as the underlying source(s) of the fails-to-deliver shares reported the day prior or the day after.
----------------snip--------------------------
I'm unsure if you/I should sum the daily FTD column to a 1/2 month total, or look at the simple daily fails (very high though)
both seem quite high to me and both are _probably_ still significant but I try to present correct data
I am _very_ eagerly awaiting the 1/1/2021 - 1/15/2021 data to understand things a bit more clearly
(I'm hopeful the formatting goes thru)
Date CUSIP SYM number Name close price price x number
20201215 36467W109 GME 170,655 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 12.72 $2,170,731.60
20201216 36467W109 GME 10,784 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 13.85 $149,358.40
20201217 36467W109 GME 500,162 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 13.85 $6,927,243.70
20201218 36467W109 GME 872,523 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 14.83 $12,939,516.09
20201221 36467W109 GME 619,404 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 15.63 $9,681,284.52
20201222 36467W109 GME 744,478 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 15.53 $11,561,743.34
20201223 36467W109 GME 700,507 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 19.46 $13,631,866.22
20201224 36467W109 GME 839,699 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 20.57 $17,272,608.43
20201228 36467W109 GME 351,316 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 20.15 $7,079,017.40
20201229 36467W109 GME 283,294 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 20.99 $5,946,341.06
20201230 36467W109 GME 648,513 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 19.38 $12,568,181.94
20201231 36467W109 GME 228,358 GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A 19.26 $4,398,175.08
$104,326,067.78
total 5,969,693
From The Telegraph:
"Melvin Capital, a hedge fund at the centre of the GameStop saga, lost more than $7bn (£5bn) last month as an online army of small investors pumped up the stock price of the US games retailer the fund had been short selling in a bet that its shares would tumble.
The hedge fund closed its position in GameStop at a loss last week, however Melvin investors including Point 72 and Citadel pumped in $2.75bn, helping it to end January with $8bn in assets, down from $12.5bn at the start of the year."
"Melvin Capital, a hedge fund at the centre of the GameStop saga, lost more than $7bn (£5bn) last month as an online army of small investors pumped up the stock price of the US games retailer the fund had been short selling in a bet that its shares would tumble.
The hedge fund closed its position in GameStop at a loss last week, however Melvin investors including Point 72 and Citadel pumped in $2.75bn, helping it to end January with $8bn in assets, down from $12.5bn at the start of the year."
It is interesting that the media takes their word for "closing their short position". I don't trust those snakes.
I can understand why Robinhood don’t want to offer trading on the margin after that huge demand. But it seems like it should be easy to fix by just requiring much more margin or charging more money for it. But why does that effect trading of normal shares? It’s a buyer and a seller that should be matched and some balance be transferred from one account to the next? Seems like it should be trivial to implement as a Solidity contract. Am I totally misunderstanding how the stockmarket works? Is it much more retarded than I think it should be?
Time to go long DeFi? Because something seems very fishy with the legacy system...
Time to go long DeFi? Because something seems very fishy with the legacy system...
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
OH, we did, we did.
We closed it for about 10 minutes before opening a new one at $310.
correct.
and correct,
and yes, because it’s not that simple.
people are forgetting the importance of how clearing and settlement work
all participants make up the clearing house NSCC and depository DTCC and clearing/depo OCC.
those entities perform functions at a fee paid by participants. but more importantly they don’t put up the capital required to clear and settle all the net trades from each participant, the participant does.
so when you have unprecedented events, or extreme volatility, the margin requirement is raised to collectively cover the asses of all the participants. they all pucker up when you have storms like this, because they don’t want to be sitting across from an AIG or Lehman like entity again, when it could have easily been prevented. how? well since 08-09 they now are subject to more strict enforcement and higher margin requirements. it works.
simple example.
broker A, B, C, D,
inv bank 1, 2, and 3
HF x, y, and z
all 10 market players above self clear and are direct nscc and dtcc participants
let’s pretend that most of them are typical well run, and well capitalized.
however one of the brokers and one of the hedge funds isn’t so tightly wound.
the brokers risk mgmt software and fin/reg reporting is relatively green. and it’s customer base is also generally green and more yolo trading than another typical brokers customer base.
the hedge fund is slimy and high leverage into a small handful of core positions (concentration risk)
they get caught off guard in this gme and amc fiasco. nscc and occ are requiring increased margin for clearing of stock and options because of increased volatility, the value at risk, and concentrations in certain securities.
the 8 other well run entities can be impacted by the two not well run ones. the 10’are only as strong as all 10 of them combined in this case. they collectively have to post capital required to settle their trades, the fees for nscc, dtcc, and occ to perform tasks and reporting, and a ‘haircut’ as a buffer for any normal market swings. in times like this that buffer goes way up.
if bad broker and bad HF implode, the first ones to get burned are the other 8 entities, as they have intermingled exposure to them on their books, unsettled trades FTD/FTR, stock loan, etc etc..the “systemic” risk that was thrown around during 08-09
by the way it’s the representatives from market participants who are on the risk committees of NSCC, OCC, DTCC to help make and enforce these rules. they don’t want to be sitting on the other side of a lehman brothers again having to collectively get burned like, “who let the guy in the door with a loaded gun?” again.
the takeaway is,
it’s likely less a conspiracy and more a cover your @ss type series of events
like i said from the beginning, the CYA behavior can go a bit overboard...but nobody wants to lose their shirt.
aaaaaaand, MOST importantly, in my eyes,
if we had any respectable oversight and enforcement agencies, maybe we wouldn’t have these scenarios. maybe we wouldn’t have blow ups. maybe even the individual customer would be more protected
but these agencies are neutered. so this is what you get.
and people who think that the individual customer has the “right” to trade whatever and whenever clearly hasn’t read their broker agreement. for example, if RH sends most of their order flow to Citadel, i’m pretty sure Citadel could be like, dude, we can’t execute these orders, we’ll get killed executing these so you have to put a choke on this crap for a while....yes it sounds unlikely but it may be totally possible and within their right, and would mean that RH needs to diversify its order routing across more liquidity providers or potentially buck up and go direct to exchanges, but the costs associated with that mean no more free trading, or no more lush profits.
Last edited:
I was watching Chamath Palihapitiya on YouTube over the weekend and learned he donated his GME winnings to the Barstool Fund.
Worthy cause that helps hurting businesses hit hard by Covid. Who knows, maybe I'll need them someday.
This was like dirty money to me. People invested in this statement and I pulled out with some extra. Whether I'm stupid or honorable, IDK, but I couldn't keep it after listening to Chamath.
I'm not suggesting anyone needs to follow, but if you feel so inclined and want to be a real Robin Hood, here's the link.
The Barstool Fund | Barstool Sports.
TSLA, on the other hand, it's all fair!
Cheers!
Worthy cause that helps hurting businesses hit hard by Covid. Who knows, maybe I'll need them someday.
This was like dirty money to me. People invested in this statement and I pulled out with some extra. Whether I'm stupid or honorable, IDK, but I couldn't keep it after listening to Chamath.
I'm not suggesting anyone needs to follow, but if you feel so inclined and want to be a real Robin Hood, here's the link.
The Barstool Fund | Barstool Sports.
TSLA, on the other hand, it's all fair!
Cheers!
Thanks for the explaination. It makes sense. But still if for example Buyer is using Robinhood and Seller is using ShortyBank which has troubles financially and cannot settle clearing, then the solution should not be to ban Robinhood user from buying, but to ban ShortyBank users from selling. Their orders should be removed from the market until they fulfill the requirements.
And settling is not an issue, my bank charges a rather large fee if I want to withdraw money direct after selling shares, but zero fees if I wait 2 banking days. If Robinhood needs to do the same, they should just charge a large fee, and pay a lot of money to borrow money to settle the transaction. I am sure someone is willing to lend them some money for 1%/day or whatever their desperate users are willing to pay if they cannot wait for the transaction to settle.
Imo it still smells really fishy.
Similar threads
