Discussion Game Stop Stock Short Squeeze

[sdifox]

How much longer could they possibly be squeezed?
GME will fall like a rock at some point.

There were 226% short on float on Jan 15. That means the shorters have to buy all the float stocks 2.26 times to return all the stocks they borrowed.

 

[sdifox]

That would be mostly accurate now based on GME being moved to non-marginable by everyone and all leverage plays being removed. The things to consider is that that wasn’t always the case, it’s had price swings equalling $340 a share over two days and GME isn’t the only stock right now this is happening with. It’s just the one most outlets talk about. There has been and remain lots of ways to lose money on this right now.


im a dealing representative so not on one of the exchange floors. We are the ones placing the orders for pretty much everything for our clients and sending them to the market makers. The only things we don‘t trade in is futures (commodities) and forex any longer. Not a lot of Canadian brokers do. I haven’t touched those markets in over three years now sadly.

What is the GMEs shortto float % now? Yahoo only shows Jan 15 data.

 

[WelshBloke]

There were 226% short on float on Jan 15. That means the shorters have to buy all the float stocks 2.26 times to return all the stocks they borrowed.

How does that work and them make money?
Say 50% of the shares are available to buy. They buy all those and return them. That would push the price up no? Then what, they have to wait for the person they just sold them to to sell them back? But won't they know that the other guy still owes them a crap ton of shares?

I don't see how being that short on shares can work. I get how shorting, say, 40% of available shares would work but not huge amounts.

And also why would anyone lend someone shares if they knew that person was going to try to drive the value of those shares down?

 

[sdifox]

How does that work and them make money?
Say 50% of the shares are available to buy. They buy all those and return them. That would push the price up no? Then what, they have to wait for the person they just sold them to to sell them back? But won't they know that the other guy still owes them a crap ton of shares?

I don't see how being that short on shares can work. I get how shorting, say, 40% of available shares would work but not huge amounts.

And also why would anyone lend someone shares if they knew that person was going to try to drive the value of those shares down?

Borrow at $10, drive it down to bankruptcy if you can and then you win since you don't need to return the stock.

They have been doing this for decades. But for once there is a large group of people that have nothing better to do and decided to screw the shorters for once.

I don't think they should allow short more than 100% and they should square the books every weekend. None of these phantom stock bullshit.

 

[nickqt]

Borrow at $10, drive it down to bankruptcy if you can and then you win since you don't need to return the stock.

They have been doing this for decades. But for once there is a large group of people that have nothing better to do and decided to screw the shorters for once.

I don't think they should allow short more than 100% and they should square the books every weekend. None of these phantom stock bullshit.

Sounds a whole lot like you hate America.

 

[sdifox]

Sounds a whole lot like you hate America.

You must be new here.

 

[nickqt]

You must be new here.

Your sarcasm meter must have exploded.

 

[sdifox]

Your sarcasm meter must have exploded.

It is yours that did xd

 

[Timorous]

I don't think they should allow short more than 100% and they should square the books every weekend. None of these phantom stock bullshit.

Just let the market sort itself out.

You wanna exceed 100% short, fine, but if someone notices you are going to have a bad time.

I think if brokers are having issues fulfilling their legal obligations when it comes to a certain stock there should be a fallback plan. Blocking buys or blocking the stock entirely is definitely not the way to go and it distorts the market if others can freely trade it because the broker a different user uses does not have an issue (fidelty were fine through this among some others).

 

[cytg111]

Just let the market sort itself out.

You wanna exceed 100% short, fine, but if someone notices you are going to have a bad time.

I think if brokers are having issues fulfilling their legal obligations when it comes to a certain stock there should be a fallback plan. Blocking buys or blocking the stock entirely is definitely not the way to go and it distorts the market if others can freely trade it because the broker a different user uses does not have an issue (fidelty were fine through this among some others).

Take the dow, its at a record high while at the same the majority of people are struggling to make ends meet... during a pandemic no less! Its this kind of bullshit that disconnects the people from the actual value of their society.

 

[Timorous]

Strongly disagree. Take the dow, its at a record high while at the same that the vast majority of people are struggling to make ends meet. Its this kind of bullshit that disconnects the people from the actual value of their society.

What does that have to do with shorts?

If you want to fix the disparity between companies doing well and people doing well it needs a lot more work than limiting short selling or other potential small in the scheme of things changes.

 

[cytg111]

What does that have to do with shorts?

If you want to fix the disparity between companies doing well and people doing well it needs a lot more work than limiting short selling or other potential small in the scheme of things changes.

Because ie. hedge funds will kill otherwise, though struggling, viable businesses.

"it needs a lot more work "

Of course it does.

It just blows my mind. Society is collapsing under a pandemic and these guys be like "we're pushing all in that this is gonna go tits up" and by doing so accelerating its demise. I mean. That's pitchfork time.

 

[WelshBloke]

Borrow at $10, drive it down to bankruptcy if you can and then you win since you don't need to return the stock.

I get that, I just don't get why anyone lends them the stock in the first place if they are going to make it worthless.

I don't think they should allow short more than 100% and they should square the books every weekend. None of these phantom stock bullshit.

Yup! There needs to be a lot more clarity about who owns what stock and how much at any one time.

 

[Timorous]

Because ie. hedge funds will kill otherwise, though struggling, viable businesses.

"it needs a lot more work "

Of course it does.

It just blows my mind. Society is collapsing under a pandemic and these guys be like "we're pushing all in that this is gonna go tits up" and by doing so accelerating its demise. I mean. That's pitchfork time.

Okay but you can achieve that by making short positions transparent in real time.

Thinking a stock will go down and making a bet that it will is not really bad in and of itself. Like most things it is only bad when done to an extreme like with GME. If you make it easier and quicker to find stocks that are in a similar position then you make it easier to take the counter position.

I think new regulations are needed but they need to be less around 'you can't exceed a 100% short position' and more around 'you need to declare your positions in real time', 'platforms cannot just disable or limit trading on a stock unless the stock gets halted by the exchange' etc. More clear rules on what is and what is not illegal market manipulation would be good as well.

 

[sdifox]

Okay but you can achieve that by making short positions transparent in real time.

Thinking a stock will go down and making a bet that it will is not really bad in and of itself. Like most things it is only bad when done to an extreme like with GME. If you make it easier and quicker to find stocks that are in a similar position then you make it easier to take the counter position.

I think new regulations are needed but they need to be less around 'you can't exceed a 100% short position' and more around 'you need to declare your positions in real time', 'platforms cannot just disable or limit trading on a stock unless the stock gets halted by the exchange' etc. More clear rules on what is and what is not illegal market manipulation would be good as well.

How does borrowing more than 100% of float stocks make sense? Remember, we are not talking about one fund doing that, it's a hunch of them doing many shorts. I mean 200+ % short?

 

[Timorous]

How does borrowing more than 100% of float stocks make sense? Remember, we are not talking about one fund doing that, it's a hunch of them doing many shorts. I mean 200+ % short?

Make sense in terms of is it a good idea, it does not because it exposes you to a huge amount of risk and the only reason that it is hard to exploit is the lax disclosure rules. Make the current short % data available real time and you bet your ass bots will incorporate that data and exploit idiots for doing dumb things.

 

[sdifox]

Make sense in terms of is it a good idea, it does not because it exposes you to a huge amount of risk and the only reason that it is hard to exploit is the lax disclosure rules. Make the current short % data available real time and you bet your ass bots will incorporate that data and exploit idiots for doing dumb things.

I don't think making transactions transparent makes sense. I shouldn't know what you buy on the market, privacy and all that. But I should not be able to sell more than 100% of available stock.

 

[cytg111]

Okay but you can achieve that by making short positions transparent in real time.

Thinking a stock will go down and making a bet that it will is not really bad in and of itself. Like most things it is only bad when done to an extreme like with GME. If you make it easier and quicker to find stocks that are in a similar position then you make it easier to take the counter position.

I think new regulations are needed but they need to be less around 'you can't exceed a 100% short position' and more around 'you need to declare your positions in real time', 'platforms cannot just disable or limit trading on a stock unless the stock gets halted by the exchange' etc. More clear rules on what is and what is not illegal market manipulation would be good as well.

Sure! Agreed. Regulate it.
But you cant have these titanics determine the direction of the actual market just cause they want a pay day.
The more I think about it, the more I think shorts as a whole concept is bad.
The market is not a god damned casino. It may look like it from a subset point of view, but common!!!

 

[zinfamous]

I get that, I just don't get why anyone lends them the stock in the first place if they are going to make it worthless.

the lender collects a pre-determined fee on borrow, so that is guaranteed money regardless of what happens. ...and the theory is that it is all a relatively equal bet for both parties, anyway. Assuming the shorting borrower is "playing fair" and not "manipulating the market through stealth publicity campaign to influence share price" because you know, that never happens, it is simply a risk to some degree for both parties on taking the bet.

 

[Homerboy]

There were 226% short on float on Jan 15. That means the shorters have to buy all the float stocks 2.26 times to return all the stocks they borrowed.

Hence "to infinity and beyond!"

 

[shortylickens]

I heard they're going after silver now.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Heh, suffice it to say - this is REALLY illustrating just how fucking moronic some people are. First Elizabeth Warren - whom calls for "SEC Investigations" only after poor ass retail investors win one over for once... Now we have Jimmy Kimmel insinuating that maybe it's the RUSSIANS that are hurting his poor poor hedge fund. What fucking idiots.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1355972515441602563

https://twitter.com/x/status/1355977811081748480

 

[crashtech]

Oh, shit, it's the Ruskies again...

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem originates because broker-dealers can lend stock they don't actually have but only have to produce when the deal closes out. It's kinda like fractional reserve lending w/o the fraction or the formal mechanisms of the repo market & the FRB. It's a racket.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Here is some of the HORRIBLE things happening because of this....