Lurker > reruns_revenge

Zeus posted...

Somebody really needs to open up a criminal investigation into RobinHood over its sudden, abrupt decision to hamstring investors since there seems to be some underhanded, probably illegal shit going on there and motivating that decision.

Dumb.

Quote of the week:

As the cheerleading and rage against the machine dies down, Mark Taylor, a sales trader at Mirabaud Securities, told Bloomberg News on Tuesday, the man on the street is left holding the bag again.

LuciferSage posted...

This is literally what big hedge funds do every day. All the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth isn't coming from retail traders, it's coming from all the "white shoes boys" that are clutching their pearls that the rabble dared to challenge them at their own game.

Ha. Yeah. They're really upset. Trading firms hate volatility and never play both sides of a trade. You people crack me up. So delusional.

Stand up and fight!

https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs

Don't touch options unless you learn the greeks and how to control risk. A shitty platform for small traders like robinhood doesn't even have rudimentary educational materials to really learn option basics and fundamentals. Go to a better platform if that's what you want to do - all of the big ones should have materials. TD Ameritrade has excellent resources as well as the thinkorswim modeling platform.

The light in the tunnel was not daylight. It was an oncoming train. This was predictable. The sad thing is that many people were suckered into putting money in the trade way too late when the risk-reward profile was totally skewed towards a big loss. And the people encouraging them to do it were fellow retail traders who, of course, were driven by their own financial self-interest in fueling the pump. I wish people would learn from the experience, but I doubt they will do more than cry foul at "wall street" and "hedge funds". The first rule of investing is don't lose money. You make it much easier to follow that rule by not making idiotic and unreasonable investment decisions predicated on supposed moral authority and get rich quick schemes.

This is an interesting question. It depends on how you look at it. In a limited sense, sixteen year old me would be overjoyed because by the time I became an adult I had achieved more and had far more "success" in conventional terms than I had ever expected at that age. But adult me hasn't been made any happier or content as a result, and in some material ways feels worse for various reasons. So I guess if sixteen year old me cared about my happiness and contentment with life as an adult, the answer would probably be no. Because not much has changed in that regard since I was sixteen. The problems are different and some things I don't have to worry about, but there are still problems.

Revelation34 posted...

He works in the insurance industry. Not an investment industry. My point was people were only doing it for their own self interest.

Mass Mutual is part of the investment industry. Many large insurance companies are. They do more than just issue insurance policies, but even whole life insurance policies are basically investment vehicles. Look it up. Mass Mutual even owned a feeder fund that sent investments to Madoff and got sued for billions. There is a reason he had the FA designation, and it's not because he was giving grandma a $50k term life policy. He knew what he was doing when orchestrating this. It's just a different iteration of a pump and dump. A bit smarter because you have the extra fuel of a short squeeze and retail investors that are easier to dupe by harnessing their collective outrage for profit. This thread is a good example of how many people are willing to buy it. That was my point.

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/keith-gill-drove-the-gamestop-reddit-mania-he-talked-to-the-journal-11611931696

What a shock. It wasn't about getting back at the hedge funds.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/gamestop-investor-deepfuckingvalue-roaring-kitty-reddit-stocks-wall-street-2021-1-1030022004

He just wanted to make his own investment go up in price.

Gasp! You mean a financial advisor from the investment industry manipulated a bunch of tiny retail investors to gamble their money to benefit his own position? Impossible! This is regular people vs. "wall street" and "hedge funds"!

And gasp! Robinhood had to borrow $500 million and get another $1 billion cash infusion from investors within the last couple of days to stay solvent and limited trading until it fixed its liquidity crisis? Impossible! It was "wall street" and "hedge funds" that forced robinhood to do that!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/robinhood-raises-1-billion-to-meet-surging-cash-demands-11611928504

It's surprisingly easy to be nominated for a nobel peace prize. All you need is a prior winner to submit a nomination for you.

Source: my girlfriend was a member of a diplomatic and legal team nominated for a nobel peace prize.

Mead posted...

why do you think that anyone thinks that

I dont think you have a good idea of what other people think

It should be self-evident. But I'll explain it anyway because apparently you have difficulty understanding the point. Throughout this thread, for example, people keep repeating the words "wall street" and "hedge funds" and keep lobbing the flimsy accusation that "wall street" and "hedge funds" have conspired against joe six pack to deprive him of his opportunity to fuel a short squeeze and profit from it. They don't really identify who, why, or how, but it's always "wall street" and "hedge funds". They get lumped together in some amorphous group that seemingly all act in concert as part of this conspiracy. That's not too difficult to see from how people talk about this subject. It's also banal and completely unsurprising because it's just part of the same tired repetitive us vs. them rhetoric that people like you regurgitate all the time. See also "billionaires".

streamofthesky posted...

He could sell. He couldn't buy.
Presumably it was the same experience for others.

When people can only sell, what direction do you think the stock price will go?

And I love how you can say that last part when the hedge funds coincidentally bought up more shorts right before these trading companies shut down these "meme stocks". How strange...

Where did I say that? I didn't. You completely missed the point. For all of the hedge funds on the short side, other hedge funds and investors are going to line up on the other side of the trade. That's how it works. I get that you understand none of this. But the claim that a few hedge funds that have a few billion at stake in one trade - and are a teeny tiny fraction of the capital available in the investing industry and the hedge funds and investors on the other side of the trade - can somehow dictate and control whether a stock can be bought or sold by someone else is pure idiocy.

Here's a thought. Read a little bit about how trading works and what hedge funds do. Then read about the Ackman vs. Icahn battle on HLF. I know you won't do it, but it illustrates the point.

Edit: Late on this point. But if your friend held AMC at 14 and couldn't buy today, that means he opened the position yesterday. AMC closed at about 20 yesterday. Your friend could easily have sold above 19 before closing and made 5 or roughly 30% on the trade. He knew this was a super super high risk trade and he decided to hold instead of taking a quick and easy profit. Now he's complaining that the price dropped all the way down to 8, and blames it on retail traders not being able to keep pumping it. In other words, he could have made an easy 30% but got greedy and lost on the gamble. I'm sorry, but fuck that guy sideways with a chainsaw and no lube. The guy he should be mad about is the one he sees in the mirror.

LuciferSage posted...

YOU as a filthy peasant couldn't buy, but our Hedge Fund betters could buy if you sold to claw back the losses they were about to take from their short positions.

See the problem yet?

What do you mean I couldn't buy? I could easily have had a buy order filled. It wouldn't have been a problem for me. I don't use margin and have a lot of cash liquidity in my securities account. I also don't use robinhood. The problem that robinhood probably has is that it let way too many people to take out way too much on margin and had to tighten restrictions for inevitable margin calls that could have brought down robinhood itself and the people that have accounts on the platform.

Sounds like your real complaint is that robinhood taking action to prevent a real risk of failure and insolvency led to a stop in the pricing part of the pump. Even though a crash and price drop is inevitable during the dump.

streamofthesky posted...

NO ONE could buy.
That was the problem.
That's why it slid back down.

He's pissed because the potential for the stock was artificially rigged to only go downwards, leaving him w/ a crappy choice of selling at a loss or hope that hedge funds knock this corrupt market fixing off and the stock price is allowed to climb back up (and "the rich showing restraint" isn't a bet I'd ever make...).
It isn't that he made a bad bet and it didn't go up like he expected. It's that some millionaires and billionaires rigged the fucking game to ensure it wouldn't go up.

I see. This is the depth of how people are processing this situation. So if NO ONE (emphasis original) could buy, how could ANYONE (emphasis mine) sell?

You people think that "hedge funds" are some single monolith that operates as a hive mind. You know who hedge funds normally like to "steal" from? Other hedge funds.

streamofthesky posted...

My friend bought AMC stocks yesterday for $14 and was literally locked out of doing anything but selling them today, and watched them go down to like $8.
He's really pissed off. Military member, moderate conservative type, voted for Trump in 2016. I got him agreeing that there needs to be a wealth tax, jail for the hedge funds involved in this, and all sorts of other "socialist" viewpoints. Just anecdotal, but if they play their cards right, I think the AOC wing of the Democrats potentially just got a bunch more people willing to give their policy ideas a shot due to this debacle, lol

I'm not sure I follow his logic or see the reason for his lizard brain rage. He held AMC at 14. According to you, he couldn't buy more, but could sell and close his position. The stock predictably had a day where it tanked like any pump and dump/short squeeze, just like GME did today, and went down to 8. Now most people wouldn't want to buy on a day where a stock has such a massive loss. Catching a falling knife and all that. So that's what he's mad about? Not being able to buy more when the stock he held went from 14 to 8? Or is he mad he didn't sell even though you say he could have. Confusing reaction.

Muscles posted...

So it's not fishy at all that the rich hedge fund companies (in this case Melvin Capital, Citadel, and Point72) were at risk of going under due to the surging prices of the stock they were short selling and then the trading of said stock just stops?

To be brutally honest, I don't think you understand how any of this works. And I think it would take significant effort for me to get you to do so, as well as fight the army of false and unsupported assumptions embedded in your beliefs.

TheSlinja posted...

you shoulda just said you were invested in a hedge fund and kept it moving

Oh boy. You're a smart one, aren't you.

TheSlinja posted...

robinhood is now selling peoples shares against their will lmaooooo
yeah def nothin shady here just an independent buisness trying to protect its users

I see. So you know it's not a margin call.

Muscles posted...

Melvin Capital, Citadel and Point72, you know, the people that can go under if the GameStop stock keeps rising, and seeing as Robinhood just randomly stopped letting people buy it you can bet they have them a nice kick back to screw over people trying to buy said stock

This is literally just to screw over the common man from finally getting the 1 up on the rich

You and other guy should have just said you can't provide an answer.

Muscles posted...

How can you look at these sort of shady business practices and be ok with it? Those hedge fund guys screw people over all the time. They shouldn't be allowed to just prevent people from buying stock just because it'll screw them

Explain the basis for your claim that "hedge fund guys" are "allowed to just prevent people from buying stock". Then support it with evidence. As I imply above, the assertion makes no sense.

TheSlinja posted...

i would prefer that big money not have the ability to shut things down when they start losing and play the same "high risk high reward" game we and playing and you yourself alluded to

I see. So you don't really want a free market. Can you please explain how and why "big money" has "shut down" retail trading platforms that (1) operate independently, (2) make all of their money from retail trades by selling retail trade order flow, and (3) wall street makes money from by engaging in the other side of the trade, so much so that they pay the retail trading platform money to get the order flow (especially from robinhood because the people using that app make so many stupid trade). So why would an independent retail trading platform that makes money from selling order flow cut off trading and lose all of the extra profit for itself? And since Wall street is all over this too and want retail traders to get involved because they will make money from them - again, to such an extent that they will pay the independent trading platform for access to the buy and sell orders - why deprive themselves of an opportunity to make money from dopey retail traders that are coming late to these stocks in droves? As part if your answer, I'd like you to explain how and what regulations are being inconsistently applied here.

I thank you in advance for your well informed and reasoned answer. Because what the retail trading platforms are doing has far more to do with protecting against large customer losses, margin calls, and a bunch of other problems that will likely be suffered by people that can't rub two nickels together and can't afford to take losses like wall street. That will be a problem for them and the platform for various reasons. It wouldn't bother me nearly as much if I didn't already subsidize many of these gamblers. If anything, the one thing they should do is throw out the circuit breakers and let the trades blow up and things readjust and correct. Let the turds get flushed. People that think robinhood is the greatest thing ever and benefits regular joe sixpack dipshits have no idea how the platform makes money.

TheSlinja posted...

note that they are not restricting ALL trades in those stocks, just small retail

so yeah its totally a free market guys

I see. So you would prefer that the stock market be completely unregulated. And likewise, the economy in general with no government intervention. Because that's what would have to exist in a true free market. I suspect you want it to be a one way door.

If they are restricting all trades in those stocks, now a bunch of small retail traders that can't really afford to absorb losses may be stuck without an exit opportunity to either lock in a gain or minimize a loss. Based on what was happening over the last week, this was forseeable. I hope they were able to close their positions or set up stop losses. And the idea that this consequence is somehow herp derp wall street is against us is phenomenally stupid. High risk trades have high risk of big losses. They should let all of this get flushed out and let people go broke.

I like this account and assume it has been watching after hours trading on GME and AMC. Two thumbs up.

pionear posted...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-reddit-student-loans-190949534.html

WTF, Social Media 'Driven' Stocks seems to be the 'Thing' nowadays...

Seems like an odd choice given that interest rates are incredibly low, but I guess makes sense if the guy has a cash flow problem servicing the debt.

No matter what you're going to have to resolve who retains the house, aren't you? If he's solely on the mortgage - i.e., the person responsible for the debt - are you going to quitclaim your interest to him? And since you received government assistance for the down payment too, you may want to check how a change in ownership between current co-owners may be treated. There are a lot of ongoing expenses and tax deductions associated with owning real property, and it's something you should start working through sooner rather than later. Such as how are you going to handle the first installment on the $376.08 in property taxes that will be due by 11/2. Because if you can't settle the issues consensually, your only other option is probably to start a partition action and force a sale.

TCs post is a testament to the continuing decline in basic logic and math skills.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

Probably because they do not understand how the Supreme Court works, which is likely primarily due to a lack of education and reliance on hysterical and misleading media reporting on the subject (and legal issues generally).

Jen0125 posted...

From what I've learned about black mold at my job you're only affected if you have an allergy to it and most people don't.

There's also the question why he didn't just move out and break the lease if the place was so bad. In general, to the extent you want to withhold rent, the amount withheld should be equivalent to the cost of the repair the landlord hasn't made after being notified and given a reasonable opportunity to fix something. And nothing he described made it sound like the property was in such terrible condition that it violated some warranty of habitability. The complaints about being "haunted" and some of the outlets not functioning make it seem that he just didn't want to pay rent and stay there as long as he could get away with it.

But since this is an AMA, I'll ask this in the form of a question:

Why didn't you just move out and break the lease instead of refusing to pay rent and forcing the landlord to evict you if the place was so terrible?

I evicted a guy that actually owned a house and was living in a rental to take advantage of the arbitrage between the income gained from renting his house and the cost of paying rent on the rental unit. He tried to use covid policies as an excuse to stop paying rent for the last two months before the lease expired while he was just a malingering dickhead that thought he could get a free place to live and I wouldn't do anything about it. Wrong. I commenced an eviction action - which he actually fought and lost - got a judgment, took his security deposit, and placed a judgment lien on his house for the remaining amount he owes me. All he did was get an eviction on his credit record and a lien on his house that I'll eventually foreclose on if he doesn't pay. It's going to up costing him a lot more than if he just paid the last two months of rent because I'll get to collect interest and fees. People are dumb.

Montjoie.

I don't really have one because I don't need to set aside a separate fund for anything. Not enough debt or current expenses/liabilities that an interruption in income would have a financial impact given the amount of surplus assets and cash available.

Sure. What index fund has returned a historical average of 12.5% on the initially invested principal amount.