Linus should stop his $GME "Investment"

[Jet_ski]

Is this what the “Linus Meth Tips” on YouTube is about? He lost 75% in 2 days?!

[oktkas]

F

[papajo]

5 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

They already covered, they’re not going to compound losses holding positions for weeks paying stupid amounts of interest, that’s not how it works.

That wouldnt be wise since the stock had (and still has in context of shortselling it) an enormous price they may have covered (by losing millions) some immediate borrowed stock that met the deadline but at large they are still salivating waiting for the stock to plummet (while doing other nasty things such as short ladder attacks to achieve that but as long as you do not sell this wont happen). 

 

So if you are in this gig the only way to hold the line so to speak is to literally hold on your stonks!

[Avus]

wow he go in at the WORST time...

[LogicalDrm]

12 hours ago, Loki0111 said:

Lol, he did it. Welcome to the club!

 

 

Merged to previous thread. Since this is update to ongoing discussion, there's no need for own thread.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Avus said:

wow he go in at the WORST time...

It's fine.

Linus is filthy rich and can afford to piss away 40 grand if he wants to. He even said in the video that he was going to ride it to 0 so to him it didn't really matter when he got in.

[Inquitus]

Ooops, good job he can afford to lose the money! Hovering around $90 in pre-market, anyone know what average price he got in at? Sadly this is all going to end in tears, I hope the reddit lads crystalised their profits, or at least cashed out their original stake, so that none of them are left holding the bag!

[DoctorNick]

I found this https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse-arca/notices - short sale restriction list

[Loki0111]

3 hours ago, Inquitus said:

Ooops, good job he can afford to lose the money! Hovering around $90 in pre-market, anyone know what average price he got in at? Sadly this is all going to end in tears, I hope the reddit lads crystalised their profits, or at least cashed out their original stake, so that none of them are left holding the bag!

Guessing he got in around $100-200. The stock probably has a floor around $30ish, though it does seem to be holding at around $90 right now.

 

Not all short squeezes end in tears though, some of it comes down to the outlook for the actual company. If you look at the Tesla short squeeze for example...

[rmstrngry]

I'm an occasional watcher of the WAN show... but as someone who actually DOES invest... what's happening with GME is NOT investing or teaching short sellers a lesson.

 

It's just plain ol' pump and dump... except done by retail investors en masse instead of by institutional investors. I get that people want to be "part of a revolution' but don't mistake this for actually investing in GameStop or AMC or Blackberry...

 

People got caught up in the frenzy and people jumped in to MAKE a BUNCH of EASY MONEY... not to be part of a movement. Sure, Linus didn't do it for those reasons... but 

 

WallStreetBets did well to encourage a frenzy... and roped in a gaggle of young male retail investors, many of whom are unemployed due to COVID, bored at home, collecting EI or CERB... and had a bit of a soft spot for GameStop and a whole lot of anger aimed at wrinkled boomers who they blame for this mess.

Sure, some people made out like bandits... but guess who won the most? People and institutions that were already massively wealthy. 

 

Should Linus make good on his promise? Yes... he solicited superchats for that reason... and it's a great story line... he can write off the losses... and he will garner support from his fans and have great content to talk about in the future. But he should do it as a business decision, not a "stick-it-to-the-man" kind of thing.

 

It actually fits well with his channel... its' not like something like a department store was shorted... this is GameStop... so even if he loses a lot of that 50k, losses are tax-deductible and he becomes a community hero for supporting GameStop. 

 

Not all losses are bad. He gets compelling content out of this and compelling future content as well. Not to mention a tax write-off.

[rmstrngry]

4 hours ago, Inquitus said:

Ooops, good job he can afford to lose the money! Hovering around $90 in pre-market, anyone know what average price he got in at? Sadly this is all going to end in tears, I hope the reddit lads crystalised their profits, or at least cashed out their original stake, so that none of them are left holding the bag!

Oh... I'm sure the ones that were in on this whole pump and dump scheme cashed out a lot of their position early on. It's the retail investors that just opened a Robin Hood acount or Wealthsimple and tossed in a few thousand (hopefully not more) that have probably lost money... 

[Blade of Grass]

18 hours ago, papajo said:

That wouldnt be wise since the stock had (and still has in context of shortselling it) an enormous price they may have covered (by losing millions) some immediate borrowed stock that met the deadline but at large they are still salivating waiting for the stock to plummet (while doing other nasty things such as short ladder attacks to achieve that but as long as you do not sell this wont happen). 

 

So if you are in this gig the only way to hold the line so to speak is to literally hold on your stonks!

"Short ladder attacks" are not a real things, just some garbage r/WSB invented that's not founded in reality to convince people to hold the bag & justify them losing most of their investments gambles. 

 

Google "Short ladder attack" and set a date range for anything < Dec 31 2020 (under "Tools" after you search), you'll see zero relevant results. I wonder why...

[papajo]

Just now, Blade of Grass said:

"Short ladder attacks" are not a real things, just some garbage r/WSB invented that's not founded in reality. 

Manipulation of stocks is a real thing. 

 

They manipulate it by buying and selling stock amongst their cahoot (So some pockets get smaller some fatter by said exchanges but all the pockets belong to the same group/team of people as a result nothing actually changes for them they dont suffer a loss or a profit but the stock price plummets)

 

So this happens out there in the jungle of life and in the jungle of the stockmarket, you can call it however you want but it does happen.

 

The reason you might have not found any academic article about it while you were googling it is most likely because "short ladder attack" is jargon. 

 

The appropriate term for this is "Insider trading" I believe.

[Kisai]

Just now, papajo said:

Manipulation of stocks is a real thing. 

 

They manipulate it by buying and selling stock amongst their cahoot (So some pockets get smaller some fatter by said exchanges but all the pockets belong to the same group/team of people as a result nothing actually changes for them they dont suffer a loss or a profit but the stock price plummets)

 

So this happens out there in the jungle of life and in the jungle of the stockmarket, you can call it however you want but it does happen.

 

The reason you might have not found any academic article about it while you were googling it is most likely because "short ladder attack" is jargon. 

 

The appropriate term for this is "Insider trading" I believe.

Insider trading is trading using known "inside" information. eg, an employee. Up until relatively recently politicians were permitted to trade on insider information because they were often on the committees that regulate those companies.

 

So getting the politicians to crack down on securities fraud, requires them being unable to benefit from it in the first place.

[Blade of Grass]

4 minutes ago, papajo said:

Manipulation of stocks is a real thing. 

Sure, but what WSB purports is just false.

Quote

They manipulate it by buying and selling stock amongst their cahoot (So some pockets get smaller some fatter by said exchanges but all the pockets belong to the same group/team of people as a result nothing actually changes for them they dont suffer a loss or a profit but the stock price plummets)

 

So this happens out there in the jungle of life and in the jungle of the stockmarket, you can call it however you want but it does happen.

 

The reason you might have not found any academic article about it while you were googling it is most likely because "short ladder attack" is jargon. 

Check my "Occupation" description in my profile  it's jargon invented by WSB, and is entirely based on flawed understanding of how markets work. 

Quote

The appropriate term for this is "Insider trading" I believe.

Definitely not insider trading, unless you think the people doing this work at GameStop? 

[papajo]

4 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Sure, but what WSB purports is just false.

Check my "Occupation" description in my profile  it's jargon invented by WSB, and is entirely based on flawed understanding of how markets work. 

Definitely not insider trading, unless you think the people doing this work at GameStop? 

Insider trading is not "one thing" it has many variations some legal some not so legal some totally illegal. 

 

When two headgefunds conspire (which you cant prove at least not by googling or by the just pointing the sells) to exchange their stocks amongst their accounts at lower asks to "throw the first domino so to speak" and make ppl see the price in the chart getting a bit lower and leading them to panic and sell then this is a form of insider trading or if you like (apparently not ) a short ladder attack. 

[Blade of Grass]

1 hour ago, papajo said:

Insider trading is not "one thing" it has many variations some legal some not so legal some totally illegal. 

Illegal insider trading has a specific legal definition, which was briefly described by Kisai above:

Quote

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/insider-trading

Legal insider trading is just regular trading activities by an employee of the company, not based on MNPI. Usually done through SEC Form 3/4/5 for people in positions which handle MNPI. 

Quote

When two headgefunds conspire (which you cant prove at least not by googling or by the just pointing the sells) to exchange their stocks amongst their accounts at lower asks to "throw the first domino so to speak" and make ppl see the price in the chart getting a bit lower and leading them to panic and sell then this is a form of insider trading or if you like (apparently not ) a short ladder attack. 

This is in no way insider trading. You have a hard time being wrong eh? Stop doubling down all the time. Insider Trading is quite literally the wrong term here. Market Manipulation (what you're accusing them of doing) is not insider trading. 

 

I'm not gonna dive into the theory deeply, but all these trades are tape reportable, so it could be easily seen as you'd repeatedly see the same brokers and contras on the tape trading the same stocks back and forth. If the theory is that they're doing this on the exchanges too (which is the only way the order book would be effected downward), then their brokers would have to violate Reg NMS and give them not-best execution for it to work by crossing, or doing large intra-market sweep trades (or if the fund has direct market access, they could directly/purposely cross the market, but that still gets the fund in trouble and has additional reporting per transaction, their regulators will grill them on why they crossed the market, even if it's an accident, and their broker would be getting in shit from regulators because a client trading under their trading ID is crossing). 

Plus, all these trades are still required to be reported to regulators, so they would quite easily see that hedge fund A and hedge fund B kept selling the same block back and forth, especially as the non-tape reporting details what kind of trade was made (principle, agent, etc) and who the beneficiary of it was (hedge fund A or B). 

 

Do you really think the legal/compliance department at a hedge fund would green light this strategy of illegally manipulating stock prices in such an easily determinable way, given the trades have mandatory regulatory reporting and would be easily detectable by a simple manipulation detection algorithm?

 

Anywho, the supposed jargon that is "short ladder attack" is just BS for "oh no the stock is falling and we're holding the bag".

[papajo]

  

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

You have a hard time being wrong eh?

First I love that Canadian "eh" so thumbs up for that

Second I am not a native English speaker so I may be wrong and I wrote in my initial post 

2 hours ago, papajo said:

The appropriate term for this is "Insider trading" I believe.

Which means "I think this is the term but I am not completely sure about that"

 

So I don't know why you get that notion  The truth being that in this forum I feel that people constantly trying to disprove me no matter how or if it applies to the essence of the topic (not referring to you personally it is a general feeling I have like instead of making a conversation they make it a "this and that you said is wrong" not even asking if it could be right or under what context it could make sense just out of the box "U SAID WRONG"  ) 

 

 

 

Having said that although I am open for correction I still dont believe that finding the terms actually matters or atleast matters more than what is happening last but not least I still believe that insider trading is the correct term  

 

 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines illegal insider trading as:

"The buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security."

 

Material information here meaning anything that can impact an investors decision to buy or sell 

 

So the way I described it being done the headgefunds  breach fiduciary duty which gives out material information that impacts the retailer's (stonks retards -they call themselves like that i dont try to insult them- on wsb) decision to buy or sell. 

[8-Bit Ninja]

How on earth has he " ACTUALLY PROMOTING GAMBLING TO MINORS"? He's stated several times that investing in GME stock is stupid and highly unlikely to go any higher (Which he was spot on with). Given that a minor cant legally buy stocks I really don't understand what point you're even trying to make? 

[Slottr]

You do realize that in Canada, to open a TFSA, you must be 18 years old, right?

[BuckGup]

Linus is not a big fish by any means. I doubt any hedge fund manager has even heard of him. There's tiers of being rich and linus is not Epstein and Oprah rich

[Blade of Grass]

5 hours ago, papajo said:

Material information here meaning anything that can impact an investors decision to buy or sell 

 

So the way I described it being done the headgefunds  breach fiduciary duty which gives out material information that impacts the retailer's (stonks retards -they call themselves like that i dont try to insult them- on wsb) decision to buy or sell. 

Who is their duty to? What MNPI did they have that they’re trading on? Are you sure the definition of MNPI is that broad?

5 hours ago, papajo said:

 

[papajo]

29 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Who is their duty to

gamespot when you buy a share you own part of the company (or the clearance house incase you borrow but that is a chain clearance house owns duty to gamespot and they own duty to the clearance house) 

 

29 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Are you sure the definition of MNPI is that broad?

There is a comma separating the "material" from the "nonpublic" one (in the SEC definition) which means it can be either. Yes I am pretty sure that it counts as material information since evidently the stock lost more than half its price in a couple of days (ok some people just went in and out in purpose but I believe most just were afraid they gonna lose everything which wouldnt happen if the stock wouldnt show signs of falling hadnt they just been ongoing on short ladder attacks) 

 

But as I said in my previous post 

6 hours ago, papajo said:

Having said that although I am open for correction I still dont believe that finding the terms actually matters or atleast matters more than what is happening last but not least I still believe that insider trading is the correct term  

 

We can agree to disagree or I even agree with you if you insist since this (arguing about the correct terminology) imho is not what's important the right term could be "penpineappleapplepen" for all that I care

[Blade of Grass]

15 minutes ago, papajo said:

gamespot when you buy a share you own part of the company 

Shareholders have no fiduciary duty to the stocks they own. It’s the reverse actually, the companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. 

Quote

There is a comma separating the "material" from the "nonpublic" one which means it can be either. Yes I am pretty sure that it counts as material information since evidently the stock lost half its price (ok some people just went in and out in purpose but I believe most judt were afraid they gonna lose everything which wouldnt happen if they stock wouldnt show signs of falling hadnt they just been ongoing on short ladder attacks) 

It doesn’t mean either, it has a specific definition. There’s tons of non-public information that exists in relation to the stock market and it is not illegal to use the information asymmetry to gain an edge (otherwise all of trading would be illegal, because some people obviously know less then others). For example, some hedge funds buy satellite images of factory parking lots to gauge how busy (and hopefully productive) they are—that’s not public information, random Joe probably doesn’t have access to it, but it’s also not illegal to trade on. 
MNPI is stuff that the company has not reported to the public yet—upcoming mergers or acquisitions, credit defaults, internal sales data, etc—that will materially effect the stock. 

Quote

But as I said in my previous post 

 

We can agree to disagree or I even agree with you if you insist since this (arguing about the correct terminology) imho is not what's important the right term could be "penpineappleapplepen" for all that I care

Welp, I’m not gonna open this can of worms. Simply, words have meaning, if you stray too far from what they mean you’re going to mislead people as to what you’re trying to say.
You can call a cat a pineapple all you’d like, but people are going to be confused and look at you weird. Up to you. 

[papajo]

2 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Shareholders have no fiduciary duty to the stocks they own. It’s the reverse actually, the companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. 

Quote

Please read the last post again because a added some small detail and I fixed typos that may have changed the meaning of a sentence or two thanks

 

As for fiduciary duty of the hedgefunds m8 it's 6:40 am over here and you ask me to clarify to you some very specialized legal intricacies that even legal authorities judge them on a "by case" basis due to their perplexity that's the work of an expensive legal firm to clarify

 

Just as a reference (to get a taste about the complexity)  

 

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp215_fiduciary_duties.pdf (you must read most of the darn thing but tldr focus -which is still tltr - can be set on page 168 -pdf page 184- and thereunder ) 

 

Long story short  fiduciary duty applies to all kinds of contractual relationships including ones between investor/manager and company invested.

 

But the very reason of how tiny fine print this entire argument needs to clarify and unpack indicates that there is no reason for you to insist on that, I mean this is not a court we are not lawyers arguing a case, this is a pc masta race forum and we are making casual conversation so your attitude of wanting to force a camel through a needle's eye instead of realizing the basic truth that the damn hedgefunds are bloodthirsty crooks and did a booboo is counterproductive imho. 

 

2 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

It doesn’t mean either, it has a specific definition.

Both have specific definitions because MNPI has better google results  doesnt mean that this is the sole term for that sort of thing in the entire universe. 

 

I know how to read legal documentation.  If two things have a comma in between them it means that either A or B or AB can be the case. To put it in other words why did they add the comma and they didn't just write " on the basis of material nonpublic information " or even better " on the basis of material nonpublic information (MNPI)"

 

and instead they chose to write " on the basis of material, nonpublic information " Do they like to hit that particular button on the keyboard?