What's interesting to me are the folks who were telling themselves that they were going to ride the stock to the moon... where I'm 100% sure if I'd bought at $4 or even $10 I'd have sold at $40 (Talk about great returns, baby) and looked the idiot when it hit $400. It's the postmodern problem of not knowing what Moon means.
I believe the President can and ought to be impeached and disqualified.
On a quick skim of the doc, I think the outline is concise and accurate, but I'm less sanguine about the blow-by-blow descriptions which I feel are more like a twitter recap than a good argument of principles.
D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20
E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22
F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29
In particular, I think the drafters have made a huge strategic mistake in Section F (Dereliction of Duty) by calling out the Presidents Tweets during the riot where he urges them to avoid violence. I guaranty that people will follow the logic introduced by the drafters themselves that Trump was at least trying to do 'something' ... the proper way to frame this was that he was PRESENT to incite, but while the Riot was escalating his dereliction of duty was manifest by ineffectually tweeting in ABSENSE. The tweets in the doc are treated as mitigating features that they downplay rather than prove actual dereliction. There's also no discussion of the National Guard and it's standing orders(?), Confusion during the Riot, and eventual deployment by ? (Pence? Schumer/Pelosi?). This will bite them in the butt, and is an unforced error.
Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the indictment reads like this... its a B- ... trying to paint an emotional scence a'la Twitter and missing the simple facts that would illustrate Trump's basic complicity and dereliction.
True enough... I read that approx $9B of the $13B lost went to #1 & #2... so let me rephrase that most is going to those groups... so I guess my question is: who eats the $4B on the way down? (Assuming that some portion of #2 cashed-out)
I'm assuming that Chewy sold enough so that their initial investment and 3-board seats are covered by the squeeze play... so they may 'give back' some of the paper gains, but will end-up with a 'free' 9% stake in the company.
I'm guessing the Pro's playing the short/gamma squeezes were happy to trade upside to redditors for real money.
Does RoaringKitty cash-out $20M, $15M, $10M, $5M? When does he cross the line from hero to sell-out?
I get the short squeeze... what I never saw fully explained was the exit strategy... how do you trade the squeeze run-up into Real Property without crashing the squeeze? For Some, for Many, for All?
I'm wondering how the categories break down:
1. Large investors who wanted to take-over GME (Chewy)
2. Large investors squeezing @ $4 exiting at, say, $400 (Pro's)
3. 'Day Traders' seeing the Short exposure in 2020 and investing at $4, $10, $20
4. Redditors joining the frenzy at, say, $100 in 2021 - but moving significant chips, say $15k+
5. The horde throwing $90 (JB's boss) for a single share to "stick it to the man"
If the losses belong mostly to #5, then it's a Robinhood tale... if the losses will hang on #4... then there will be much schadenfreude. If there are no losses, well then I will be amazed.
Still no idea what exit strategy is... plus I find it ironic in the revealing sort of way that the $20B market valuation of GME raises no actual funds for GME to do anything with... because the SEC wouldn't allow them to swap their stock with any other company in a buy-out. So other than possibly enriching some officers (and hopefully some employees) the disconnect between stock/company/ownership should be cast into relief.
Same... their hook is commission-free trades plus easier access to RH-Gold which allows Margin trading under all the usual conditions. Their app is "easy to use" but looking at it, it's just modern design without the usual clutter of, say, TDAmeritrade or E*trade both of which I've used. There's nothing in TDAmeritrade that makes it more-sophisticated when it comes time to click BUY.
But RH-Gold and Margin trading seem to be a new thing that Milennials think is a trap laid just for them.
I can get Margin trading at any brokerage... but most of us GenX'rs don't... cause we grew up with people who were alive in 1929.
Milennials discovered Margin Trading and didn't have the spectre of 1929 haunting their investing habits.
This is the pitch:
Our mission is to democratize finance for all. Earning revenue allows us to offer you a range of financial products and services at low cost, including commission-free trading. Here’s how we generate the majority of our revenue:
The cautionary tale Saul keeps alluding to isn't all that cautionary because the poor soul wasn't in the red, hadn't been loaned $1M, mis-read a settlement/balance statement and likely killed himself for reasons bigger than the trigger event (as is usually the case)... though a sad tale no matter what.
Eh... there's still something off about this. I believe the technical explanation that they have to maintain a settlement balance to cover the various baseline + risk factors required by the clearing houses... no problem. What I don't believe is the non-technical explanation that they were "embarrassed" to admit they had to borrow to cover the settlement float? The second part? That's what we call a cover story.
One important point is that it is the BROKER and *not* the Trader who gains the benefit of the loaned short... that's also why the Redditors are telling folks to set their shares to No-Loan. The individual trader never sees any of the Lender benefits... it's all BROKER money.
"In determining who benefits from lending shares in a short sale, we first need to clarify who is doing the lending in a short sale transaction. Many individual investors think that—because their shares are the ones being lent to the borrower—they will receive some benefit; but this is not the case."
Heh, Erick Erickson is turning into the No-Malarkey of the Right... he found the context... it seems there may have been some, er, context shifting. I mean, he still comes of as a 'bad spokesman' for the oligarchy... but not really specific to the Gamestop stuff. Alas.
I need your attention here a minute. Seriously. I went back and watched the full clip of this after a listener tipped me off. @disclosetv is smearing Leon Cooperman. If you pay attention, the clock jumps from 11:31 to 11:35. His "bullshit" comment is about Biden policies. https://t.co/lbmO1wvLY9
Unless there's another clip... I watched the clip and he doesn't say what Offenhartz quotes.
I mean, I was hoping he did... that's why I watched the clip... instead, at the 3:30 mark he gives a pretty self-serving and obviously silly take on the 2008 bailout, but basically just says that short selling is risky and obviously the shorts are very smart people who are going to be correct in the long run. Honestly, he seems fairly oblivious to anything that's happening.
But, as I say - unless there's another clip - he's not angry nor does he say the silly things above.
Well, the Winklevoss has spoken [but note, not invested] : #Holdtheline
Robinhood was never what it pretended to be. It built its business on selling Wall Street Bets order flow to the hedge fund Citadel. In the moment of truth, we learned which customer it cares about the most.
Yeah... my initial take was something closer to Michaels where this was a broad Market halt... but as Vikram is asking on Twitter... have we ever really seen a targeted group forced to sell and not buy - while the rest of the market (esp institutional players) can buy/sell as needed?
Basically by forcing Sell as the only option, it is signaling (more than signaling) it is *ending* the play and forcing the sell-off.
But, good news, we're informed by Biden's press Secretary that Janet Yellen is a woman.
On “Wednesday Writs: Trump’s Impeachment Response, Spellchecked and Explained”
That's why I try not to win too early in the evening... ruins the fun.
Also, when it's late, then I can say, hey... that was $300 worth of fun, right?
"
What's interesting to me are the folks who were telling themselves that they were going to ride the stock to the moon... where I'm 100% sure if I'd bought at $4 or even $10 I'd have sold at $40 (Talk about great returns, baby) and looked the idiot when it hit $400. It's the postmodern problem of not knowing what Moon means.
On “The Media, or Try Consuming News Like A Grown Adult”
That's what I said about satellite radio... but here we are.
On “House Impeachment Brief: Dems Make the Case”
I believe the President can and ought to be impeached and disqualified.
On a quick skim of the doc, I think the outline is concise and accurate, but I'm less sanguine about the blow-by-blow descriptions which I feel are more like a twitter recap than a good argument of principles.
D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20
E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22
F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29
In particular, I think the drafters have made a huge strategic mistake in Section F (Dereliction of Duty) by calling out the Presidents Tweets during the riot where he urges them to avoid violence. I guaranty that people will follow the logic introduced by the drafters themselves that Trump was at least trying to do 'something' ... the proper way to frame this was that he was PRESENT to incite, but while the Riot was escalating his dereliction of duty was manifest by ineffectually tweeting in ABSENSE. The tweets in the doc are treated as mitigating features that they downplay rather than prove actual dereliction. There's also no discussion of the National Guard and it's standing orders(?), Confusion during the Riot, and eventual deployment by ? (Pence? Schumer/Pelosi?). This will bite them in the butt, and is an unforced error.
Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the indictment reads like this... its a B- ... trying to paint an emotional scence a'la Twitter and missing the simple facts that would illustrate Trump's basic complicity and dereliction.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
Jan 27: Hold the Line!
Feb 2: No U!
"
True enough... I read that approx $9B of the $13B lost went to #1 & #2... so let me rephrase that most is going to those groups... so I guess my question is: who eats the $4B on the way down? (Assuming that some portion of #2 cashed-out)
I'm assuming that Chewy sold enough so that their initial investment and 3-board seats are covered by the squeeze play... so they may 'give back' some of the paper gains, but will end-up with a 'free' 9% stake in the company.
I'm guessing the Pro's playing the short/gamma squeezes were happy to trade upside to redditors for real money.
Does RoaringKitty cash-out $20M, $15M, $10M, $5M? When does he cross the line from hero to sell-out?
"
I get the short squeeze... what I never saw fully explained was the exit strategy... how do you trade the squeeze run-up into Real Property without crashing the squeeze? For Some, for Many, for All?
I'm wondering how the categories break down:
1. Large investors who wanted to take-over GME (Chewy)
2. Large investors squeezing @ $4 exiting at, say, $400 (Pro's)
3. 'Day Traders' seeing the Short exposure in 2020 and investing at $4, $10, $20
4. Redditors joining the frenzy at, say, $100 in 2021 - but moving significant chips, say $15k+
5. The horde throwing $90 (JB's boss) for a single share to "stick it to the man"
If the losses belong mostly to #5, then it's a Robinhood tale... if the losses will hang on #4... then there will be much schadenfreude. If there are no losses, well then I will be amazed.
On “Robinhood, Reloaded”
Help, new SEC regulations are putting my comments in mod.
"
"Still, short sellers mostly are holding onto their bearish positions or they are being replaced by new hedge funds willing to bet against the stock"
Sonuvabitch if we haven't moved into the Barricade the streets portion of the revolt.
Problem is, Napoleon eventually shows up with Cannons. The "whiff of grapeshot" memes will be epic.
"
Friday: GME price at $350 go brrr
Still no idea what exit strategy is... plus I find it ironic in the revealing sort of way that the $20B market valuation of GME raises no actual funds for GME to do anything with... because the SEC wouldn't allow them to swap their stock with any other company in a buy-out. So other than possibly enriching some officers (and hopefully some employees) the disconnect between stock/company/ownership should be cast into relief.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
I look forward to the future where I can no longer share my salary nor investing plans with my co-workers.
On “Robinhood, Reloaded”
Same... their hook is commission-free trades plus easier access to RH-Gold which allows Margin trading under all the usual conditions. Their app is "easy to use" but looking at it, it's just modern design without the usual clutter of, say, TDAmeritrade or E*trade both of which I've used. There's nothing in TDAmeritrade that makes it more-sophisticated when it comes time to click BUY.
But RH-Gold and Margin trading seem to be a new thing that Milennials think is a trap laid just for them.
I can get Margin trading at any brokerage... but most of us GenX'rs don't... cause we grew up with people who were alive in 1929.
Milennials discovered Margin Trading and didn't have the spectre of 1929 haunting their investing habits.
This is the pitch:
Our mission is to democratize finance for all. Earning revenue allows us to offer you a range of financial products and services at low cost, including commission-free trading. Here’s how we generate the majority of our revenue:
Rebates from market makers and trading venues
Robinhood Gold
Stock loan
Income generated from cash
Cash Management
Read on for more detail on how we make money:
The cautionary tale Saul keeps alluding to isn't all that cautionary because the poor soul wasn't in the red, hadn't been loaned $1M, mis-read a settlement/balance statement and likely killed himself for reasons bigger than the trigger event (as is usually the case)... though a sad tale no matter what.
"
Narrator: But they did have a liquidity crisis.
Eh... there's still something off about this. I believe the technical explanation that they have to maintain a settlement balance to cover the various baseline + risk factors required by the clearing houses... no problem. What I don't believe is the non-technical explanation that they were "embarrassed" to admit they had to borrow to cover the settlement float? The second part? That's what we call a cover story.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
One important point is that it is the BROKER and *not* the Trader who gains the benefit of the loaned short... that's also why the Redditors are telling folks to set their shares to No-Loan. The individual trader never sees any of the Lender benefits... it's all BROKER money.
From Investopedia
"In determining who benefits from lending shares in a short sale, we first need to clarify who is doing the lending in a short sale transaction. Many individual investors think that—because their shares are the ones being lent to the borrower—they will receive some benefit; but this is not the case."
"
Heh, Erick Erickson is turning into the No-Malarkey of the Right... he found the context... it seems there may have been some, er, context shifting. I mean, he still comes of as a 'bad spokesman' for the oligarchy... but not really specific to the Gamestop stuff. Alas.
"
Still hovering at $250 as we approach closing bell... weird spike to almost $500 at 2:00... this is one manipulated beast.
"
Thanks... looks like he said the words... now I feel compelled to find the full un-edited clip to get the context.
"
Unless there's another clip... I watched the clip and he doesn't say what Offenhartz quotes.
I mean, I was hoping he did... that's why I watched the clip... instead, at the 3:30 mark he gives a pretty self-serving and obviously silly take on the 2008 bailout, but basically just says that short selling is risky and obviously the shorts are very smart people who are going to be correct in the long run. Honestly, he seems fairly oblivious to anything that's happening.
But, as I say - unless there's another clip - he's not angry nor does he say the silly things above.
Link to clip
"
#timetomoveonfromKennedyassassination
On “Locked Out”
Oh the lessons he'll learn.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
Waiting for the pivot from Comms to Policy - as they say these days.
"
This is why we need gifs here.
"
Well, the Winklevoss has spoken [but note, not invested] : #Holdtheline
"
Wow... sell-off from $476 down to $126 (plan is working) ... rebounds to $300 ... now plateauing ... what will Friday bring?
This is just will-to-power at this point.
[bad things will come of this, but still]
"
Yeah... my initial take was something closer to Michaels where this was a broad Market halt... but as Vikram is asking on Twitter... have we ever really seen a targeted group forced to sell and not buy - while the rest of the market (esp institutional players) can buy/sell as needed?
Basically by forcing Sell as the only option, it is signaling (more than signaling) it is *ending* the play and forcing the sell-off.
But, good news, we're informed by Biden's press Secretary that Janet Yellen is a woman.