[anandhsub]

A discussion on short squeezes in an automotive forum cannot be complete without mentioning the infamous short squeeze in Volkswagen in 2008, triggered by Porsche quietly buying VW shares with only 6% of the total VW shares left in the open market for the shorts to cover.

More reading

[avira_tk]

The brazen fraud to help out the establishment financiers is breathtaking, expected, now that we have the senator for citibank in the white house. The #resistance won't be standing up for the little guy here, they're already busy denouncing them as nazis.

[download2live]

So what happened?

As per Reddit (and hence take it with two bags of salt)

1. Few users were restricted by Robinhood to buying 2 or less shares. The response has been if you are not letting us buy we won't sell. Old school Fidelity has redeemed itself in this fiasco.

2. Again lot of misinformation being spread by hedge funds that Melvin has covered its positions and taken loss. Trickery of words. Seems that they have covered "one" position.

3. There was evidence of short ladder attack. Some people did sell. And some saw through it and still held.

4. How this will end is now beyond my comprehension. Other than majority of holders of stock will end up losing money. What complicates things is that most of the people have invested the money they are comfortable losing. That few shares gang is the one making things muddy.

5. There 'was' a chance that regulators will step in to end this by changing the rules like they did here. But the way this has exploded all over the world news this option seems like a self destruct button for them.

6. There is a slim chance that WSB holds it together and shorts slowly capitulate. Like in case of Tesla. Shorts losing money was described as "Gentle tailwinds" enjoyed by Tesla stock "over the year".

Some great explanations in those Reddit thread.
Here is one on short ladder attack:

"
“Short-seller ladder attacks

Yesterday the shorts planned an attack which saw the share price plummet. This was on paper only. In reality, there was no buying or selling of many shares, it was just smoke and mirrors.

It is just hedge funds selling non-existent shares to each other at lower and lower bid prices.

Example: I have a Toyota to sell for $20,000. There are two guys that need to buy a car. They talk to each other in front of me and Person 1 says to Person 2, "I will sell you my Toyota for $10,000. His car is too expensive". This car does not exist. They make an agreement on a non-existent car in front of me. An hour later they come back and then Person 2 says that he will sell the Toyota back to person 1 for $5,000.

Now a non-existent Toyota appears to have changed hands between these two people and the market would think that from seeing this exchange that the car is only worth $5,000, rather than the $20,000 I want to sell it for.

Now I have two choices. I can fall for their trick and think to myself, "Hmm, maybe my car is not actually worth $20,000 and I should just sell it for $5,000, because that is what the market is saying it is worth".

OR, I can see through these fake tricks and see that in reality, these two idiots are trying to trick me into selling them something valuable for 1/4 the price.

Yesterday this is what happened on the share market, to GME shares, instead of the Toyota.

They want us to sell for very cheap because they manipulated the market to deceive us.
"

[tsk1979]

The MEME rally rescued AMC
https://www.polygon.com/movies/2021/...ebt-conversion

This movie is going to be more entertaining than the big short

[drsnt]

Interesting read on same topic.
https://twitter.com/compound248/stat...351248898?s=19

[Sen]

Quite the chain of events unfolding here. Been tracking it on reddit. They're eyeing to bring a crypto dogecoin to $1+ as well. Crazy stuff going on overall imo. Wasn't this all with some stimulus money or something, some quips heard of them "making their own stimulus" and all.

[SmartCat]

Elizabeth Warren (Senator & 2020 Presidential candidate) has released this letter (click on image to zoom):

Originally Posted by Sen

Wasn't this all with some stimulus money or something

Yes, all this with $600 stimulus checks.

[lordtottuu]

I bought a couple of shares (literally) at 20 USD per after reading a DeepF'nValue DD post at WSB early this month. Bought it just for laughs, maybe shared autism. to the moon, I guess?

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Elizabeth Warren (Senator & 2020 Presidential candidate) has released this letter (

Yes, all this with $600 stimulus checks.

Elizabeth Warren speaks up to make sure her backers will be protected. Perhaps the fed can send trillion dollar stimulus cheques to bail out their buddies. The partisan cringe by the establishment is really testing even the Trump bad believers.

The brokers are selling customer shares and restricting trading to limit the downside, casinos have better ethics. Stimulus cheques shafting the players in the rigged system, this is why the media is in overdrive to smear the small traders.

[download2live]

Someone bought few minutes of billboard time.

Then there was this plane in the Miami sky with WSB banner behind it too.


Next week is going to be interesting to put it mildly.

Droves of people have abandoned Robinhood and are opening accounts with Fidelity Schwab etc. By the middle of the week they should have cash ready to purchase more.

Looks like there is support from other countries too. People buying a share or two.

That one share gang is something hedge fund guys never factored in.

Will regulator now step in to nuke the whole thing? Too risky. A PR nightmare for the politicians.
But then these hedge funds are dealing with their money only.


As for the movie, DFV has to be played by Ryan Reynolds.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Elizabeth Warren speaks up to make sure her backers will be protected.

Bit confused about this comment. Who are her backers, that she is protected here? She is usually a champion of common people, and Wall Street absolutely hates her for making them look bad all the time. She is a top expert in bankruptcy and consumer protection laws. She turned to politics only in her 60s.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Bit confused about this comment. Who are her backers, that she is protected here? She is usually a champion of common people, and Wall Street absolutely hates her for making them look bad all the time. She is a top expert in bankruptcy and consumer protection laws. She turned to politics only in her 60s.

She's a fraud who got her teaching job claiming to be a native American. Wall street doesn't care if someone makes them look bad, she's going to do nothing when wall street looks after their own with brazen fraud.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

She's a fraud who got her teaching job claiming to be a native American.

Wow, you actually bought into that story? It was simply something she ticked on the form based on family lore. She never benefited in any way. Her opponent Scott Brown used that innocent mistake to smear her in 2012 during her first senate election campaign. That silly accusation fell so flat, she won despite being a first time candidate.

Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.

Source (An article by Washington Post Fact Checker)

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Wow, you actually bought into that story? It was simply something she ticked on the form based on family lore. She never benefited in any way. Her opponent Scott Brown used that innocent mistake to smear her in 2012 during her first senate election campaign. That silly accusation fell so flat, she won despite being a first time candidate.

Source (An article by Washington Post Fact Checker)

No it's not a hoax, she was listed as Native American on the Harvard law school directory between 1986 and 1995. She won, with obama campaigning for her, in Massachusetts, ground zero of voter fraud. The oppression Olympics just doesn't end.

Washington Post, the same guys who settled with Nick Sandmann over another native American elder? They are really trustworthy, just behind CNN on the Babylon bee doublethink features.

Did you notice the exact same playbook is employed here, even the same accusations. Warren doesn't seem to know that stock market shenanigans don't affect day to day company operations. The reason there is a short squeeze is because the new investors are in it for the long haul, and the free float is reduced.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by carboy

Going short is just the opposite of going long. I don't see why someone should be upset with shorting.

If you think a stock is going to go up, you go long. If you think a stock is going to go down, you go short. Two sides of the same coin.

There has been a debate about going short for as long as it has been invented.

Some call selling short immoral, as the short seller is betting on the price of stock going down and benefits from a company struggling more and more, potentially going bankrupts. The argument is, the short seller profits, the employees lose their jobs, creditors get into problems, might go bust etc.

The counter argument tends to be, that short sellers don’t actually cause the problems of the company, merely profit by it.

There are lots of technicalities that you can throw into this debate. But the crucial question remains; do you want to benefit from somebody else downfall and misfortune? It is not illegal, but should you participate in such behaviour?

I am a hard core liberal. Anything that is not forbidden by law is allowed. Whether you actually do certain things is about common sense and morality.

Jeroen