The big GameStop short: Reddit traders outmaneuver US hedge funds

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

My personal opinion on whether shortening a Stock is illegal btw:
No.

When you are allowed to bet that a stock goes up (i.E. normal stock trading), you should as well be allowed to bet on a stock going down.

Except it actually creates negative pressure that can finish off entites who do not have enough financial strength. You tell me if it shouldn't at least be heavily regulated.

There was talk at the start of 2020 of people looking to short biotech companies like Arcturus, Moderna etc . looking to strangle vaccine development in its cradle just so they can make a quick buck. You tell me where's the ethics in that. This might be a more severe example but the general sentiment is the same

[AC-Phoenix]

Just checked, and they apparently have 3 stores left in my country... All in the Capitol.
That being said, although two of the locations are rather good, they are still far to close to one another.
If you were really bored you could get from one to another in 10-15 minutes on foot.

Again, both technically have a good location, one being in a major shopping mall, the other in an underground mall at a major underground station.

Still, far too close to one another, given that the third one is pretty much on the other side of the city. (Also in a major mall. I see a pattern here.)
Assuming they choose their locations similarly everywhere, I'm starting to see wa problem on that side too...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Except it actually creates negative pressure that can finish off entites who do not have enough financial strength. You tell me if it shouldn't at least be heavily regulated.

There was talk at the start of 2020 of people looking to short biotech companies like Arcturus, Moderna etc . looking to strangle vaccine development in its cradle just so they can make a quick buck. You tell me where's the ethics in that. This might be a more severe example but the general sentiment is the same

You cut out the part where I said you 140% should be looked at... That being said, said entities might not be that healthy to begin with, and would eventually fail.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

There was talk at the start of 2020 of people looking to short biotech companies like Arcturus, Moderna etc . looking to strangle vaccine development in its cradle just so they can make a quick buck. You tell me where's the ethics in that. This might be a more severe example but the general sentiment is the same

And this is why the Leninist sleeping inside me think that Stalin has a point. Those assholes all deserve a lifetime of forced labor, so they learn the pain of the workers.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Sheba

And this is why the Leninist sleeping inside me think that Stalin has a point. Those assholes all deserve a lifetime of forced labor, so they learn the pain of the workers.

I think they already got their divine punishment when vaccine companies stocks probably pretty much exploded.
That being said, you may thank Trump and his "Corona is a myth" boys for people thinking short selling vaccine productions is a good idea.

Shorting a pharma group during a pandemic is nothing but lunacy, and frankly, those people were probably already facing lawsuits and just wanted to become judgement proof lol. - Because that is how obvious the result of shortening any kind of vaccine production plant is atm.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

My personal opinion on whether shortening a Stock is illegal btw:
No.

It's not in question at all. In the USA, it's legal. In some other countries, including several European countries such as France or Germany, it's not.

When you are allowed to bet that a stock goes up (i.E. normal stock trading), you should as well be allowed to bet on a stock going down.

If you're talking about whether it should be legal, and trying to make a moral argument about it, based on principles... Well, it really depends on what principles you have.

Myself, I don't really have relevant principles one way or the other, so before I come to a firm position, I would ask questions about the societal role of shorting (since that's the subject) and of the stock-exchange-as-a-casino in general.

I mean, you talk of bets that we should be allowed to make, but it's not like a roulette where the ball falls where it will regardless of how many people bet on a particular number. Short-selling's more like betting a horse will lose a race, and also, with every bet, you're allowed to throw a stone at that horse. Also, the horse is the livelihood of thousands, maybe millions of people.

What needs to be examined imho is the 140% thing.

Not really. Part and parcel of the game, even without naked short selling (which is illegal). Speaking of principles, go back to my example - why would Bob be allowed to short sell, but not Daniel?

The real question is: Did any of the reddiders who started this short the hedgefond at the same time? Because that would sound very illegal .

The redditors didn't short the hedge funds. You might argue they short squeezed them, or tried to. It's not certain it really happened. (The fact the price increased may not have been an actual short-squeeze.)

You might also argue that some redditors (the ones who started this) did something called "pump and dump", which is an illegal form of market manipulation. Hard to prove, and most redditors would be victims there, not perpetrators.

Regardless, hedge funds do that to each other on the regular. It was only remarkable because this time, it was "little people"... maybe. What do your principles tell you about that?

As for whether betting on GameStop failing is justified: Given, the pandemic, yes. Gamestop isn't even allowed to open in my country at the moment, and the same goes for Germany.

A lot of people, myself included, also haven't bought physical copies of games even before that, as they tend to bulk up (book)shelves. So, let's be honest here: As sad as it is: How much will Gamestop be able to compete against Steam, and others in the future?
Their best bet would be selling Steamkeys and ask steam for a brokerage.

Smarter, better informed people than any of us here (certainly more focused on the issue) have bet either way. Some hedge funds are long on it. There are reasons to think Gamestop will recover. There are reasons to think it won't.

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

I think they already got their divine punishment when vaccine companies stocks probably pretty much exploded.
That being said, you may thank Trump and his "Corona is a myth" boys for people thinking short selling vaccine productions is a good idea.

Shorting a pharma group during a pandemic is nothing but lunacy, and frankly, those people were probably already facing lawsuits and just wanted to become judgement proof lol. - Because that is how obvious the result of shortening any kind of vaccine production plant is atm.

Now, sure. But what about a year ago? Heck, even and especially with hindsight, it looks like short-selling Sanofi or Pasteur (who failed to produce a vaccine) would have been a good idea.

[serenade_beta]

Originally Posted by GDB

It's not even just about physical vs digital, though that's done a number on them.

They offer literally zero over Best Buy, Target, Amazon, or Walmart. In fact, Target you can get it cheaper due to RedCard or their usual pre-order bonuses for like a $5 gift card or whatever when you pick up the game.

I remember liking a game enough to want to buy the physical version, so I called my nearest Gamestops, and they didn't have that in-stock.
Like, bruh, the few times I rely on you and you still can't.

[scififan]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not in question at all. In the USA, it's legal. In some other countries, including several European countries such as France or Germany, it's not.

There were more stakeholders involved in the investment industry than I originally thought.

What is the purpose of the clearing house, such as National Securities Clearing Corporation?

Robinhood, Under the Gun, Raises $2.4 Billion
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/b...p-trading.html

On Thursday morning, an arm of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, Wall Street’s main clearinghouse for stock trades, demanded $3 billion in additional collateral from Robinhood as a cushion against those risky trades by its customers, according to Vlad Tenev, the trading app’s chief executive.

Elon Musk Confronts Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev For Gamestop & Other Stocks Trading Halt On Clubhouse!
https://youtu.be/2M7X2dsW_Xw?t=888
Vlad was saying something that his company has to comply with the regulatory requirement(from SEC?). Elon asked who are they, and Vlad's response was the clearing house. Elon asked about the what authority does the clearing house has. Vlad said getting more into that would be a conspiracy theory.

Do you hear something differently?

Robinhood braces for lawmaker outrage at GameStop hearings
https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...estop-hearings

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev is expected to testify before the House Financial Services Committee at a Feb. 18 hearing that will focus on the GameStop rally, Robinhood’s response and the overall state of the stock market. A separate Senate Banking Committee hearing is in the works.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by scififan

There were more stakeholders involved in the investment industry than I originally thought.

What is the purpose of the clearing house, such as National Securities Clearing Corporation?

You remember when I said there was a risk of things breaking down between the time orders were placed and the time the transactions actually occurred? They're basically insurance against that.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not in question at all. In the USA, it's legal. In some other countries, including several European countries such as France or Germany, it's not.


If you're talking about whether it should be legal, and trying to make a moral argument about it, based on principles... Well, it really depends on what principles you have.

Myself, I don't really have relevant principles one way or the other, so before I come to a firm position, I would ask questions about the societal role of shorting (since that's the subject) and of the stock-exchange-as-a-casino in general.

I mean, you talk of bets that we should be allowed to make, but it's not like a roulette where the ball falls where it will regardless of how many people bet on a particular number. Short-selling's more like betting a horse will lose a race, and also, with every bet, you're allowed to throw a stone at that horse. Also, the horse is the livelihood of thousands, maybe millions of people.



Not really. Part and parcel of the game, even without naked short selling (which is illegal). Speaking of principles, go back to my example - why would Bob be allowed to short sell, but not Daniel?


The redditors didn't short the hedge funds. You might argue they short squeezed them, or tried to. It's not certain it really happened. (The fact the price increased may not have been an actual short-squeeze.)

You might also argue that some redditors (the ones who started this) did something called "pump and dump", which is an illegal form of market manipulation. Hard to prove, and most redditors would be victims there, not perpetrators.

Regardless, hedge funds do that to each other on the regular. It was only remarkable because this time, it was "little people"... maybe. What do your principles tell you about that?


Smarter, better informed people than any of us here (certainly more focused on the issue) have bet either way. Some hedge funds are long on it. There are reasons to think Gamestop will recover. There are reasons to think it won't.



Now, sure. But what about a year ago? Heck, even and especially with hindsight, it looks like short-selling Sanofi or Pasteur (who failed to produce a vaccine) would have been a good idea.

Have to do a Quick answer here, as I'm at work and have to answer during breaks an in between cases.:

Ad Germany Ban:
Uhm source? As far as I know the only thing that got outlawed there is shortening Government and EU fonds. But not fonds in general.

Ad Should be allowed/not allowed/ bets:
Buying shares is a bet to begin with, even if you don't shorten them. If a stock suddenly plummets due to bad business decisions the money invested might be lost too.
Businesses that get shortened usually don't do too well in the first place.

Ad Package deal with 140%
In your example, he should be told that there is no share he can borrow available.
You can't do it the other way around either.
I.E. if you sell more than 100% of a share, everything beyond those 100% are fictional. Therefore, you know in advance that X% won't be able to buy the shares back properly.
Even if they could, 140% in itself is already fictional as you'd have to go to the next increment, namely 140/1000.
So aye, I actually think fictional shares shouldn't be allowed.

If you really want to give Daniel a chance to short on it, you could issue fractional shares.

Ad Shortening the Hedge.
I'm not too sure if a hedgefond would first buy another hedgefonds position, while shortening the other hedgefond at the same time.
One without the other sounds reasonable, doing both would be at least a VERY grey zone.

Ad Gamestop
Yeah, my point is, shortening them isn't wrong per se. Especially if you take in examples like the one I gave regarding their choice of location.

Vaccine Companies
It's also a moral question and the stock exchange should have stopped it in the first place. And frankly, under Biden it would have probably happened, as he didn't underestimate the gravity of the situation so drastically.

After all, governments not only exist to protect people from one another, but also from themselves.
Just look at all the Trumpists, they definitely need to be protected from their own stupidity.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Have to do a Quick answer here, as I'm at work and have to answer during breaks an in between cases.:

Ad Germany Ban:
Uhm source? As far as I know the only thing that got outlawed there is shortening Government and EU fonds. But not fonds in general.

Maybe I misunderstood this.

Ad Should be allowed/not allowed/ bets:
Buying shares is a bet to begin with, even if you don't shorten them. If a stock suddenly plummets due to bad business decisions the money invested might be lost too.
Businesses that get shortened usually don't do too well in the first place.

Irrelevant. The point is that short selling introduces undesirable effects while being unnecessary.

Ad Package deal with 140%
In your example, he should be told that there is no share he can borrow available.
You can't do it the other way around either.

Why? Carol has a share, she came by it honestly, and she's more than willing to lend it out and pocket the fee.

I.E. if you sell more than 100% of a share, everything beyond those 100% are fictional. Therefore, you know in advance that X% won't be able to buy the shares back properly.
Even if they could, 140% in itself is already fictional as you'd have to go to the next increment, namely 140/1000.
So aye, I actually think fictional shares shouldn't be allowed.

They're no more fictional than any other share. Having 140% of the float short selled doesn't mean there's 140%, or 240% of the normal quantity if shares running around. It just means lots of short selling. Saying there shouldn't be more than 100% is like saying a country's sovereign debt shouldn't be more than 100% of GDP. Those who say that generally mix up two quantities that aren't as directly related as they think, and don't realize that 100% is an arbitrary limit. Why not 50%, or 150%?

If you want to argue that a borrowed share is "fictional" and shouldn't be treated like other shares, then first you're denying the very concept of short selling, and also, it starts with the first share you short-sell. Not the 100%+1.

If you really want to give Daniel a chance to short on it, you could issue fractional shares.

I don't see what that would change.

Ad Shortening the Hedge.
I'm not too sure if a hedgefond would first buy another hedgefonds position, while shortening the other hedgefond at the same time.
One without the other sounds reasonable, doing both would be at least a VERY grey zone.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Possibly because you're mangling the jargon.

Again, I'm not aware that hedge funds short sold each other, but what if they did? If a hedge fund is publicly traded, why would it be immune to short-selling when Gamestop isn't?

Ad Gamestop
Yeah, my point is, shortening them isn't wrong per se. Especially if you take in examples like the one I gave regarding their choice of location.

Your evidence is anecdotal (Gamestop has thousands of locations), and to have an informed opinion on it, I'd need to know a lot more on the particulars and on the business in general.

Vaccine Companies
It's also a moral question and the stock exchange should have stopped it in the first place. And frankly, under Biden it would have probably happened, as he didn't underestimate the gravity of the situation so drastically.

Why? Why should it matter if vaccine companies are short-sold? And why wouldn't it matter if Gamestop is? You sound a bit like you think it's fine to run over a shop clerk, and but not a doctor.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Maybe I misunderstood this.

Seems so, as it even says that several are exempt from the ban. It seems to mainly refer to the ones who are part of major indices.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Irrelevant. The point is that short selling introduces undesirable effects while being unnecessary.

No, because you could argue the same for regular stock trading.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Why? Carol has a share, she came by it honestly, and she's more than willing to lend it out and pocket the fee.

Carol lending out her share doesn't magically increase the actual amount of total shares available though.
The total amount of actually existing shares is still just 100%, even if you lend some of them out.
This used to be less blurry when shares were still physical.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If you want to argue that a borrowed share is "fictional" and shouldn't be treated like other shares, then first you're denying the very concept of short selling, and also, it starts with the first share you short-sell. Not the 100%+1.

Uhm no, short-selling doesn't require calculations with more than 100% per se.

Basically, you are just betting on it falling, rather than rising by first borrowing at price X, selling them at y>x, and by the time you have to give them back at y<x to make a profit from the difference.
You could of course argue that the lender still owes the share, however, the person who borrowed them never actually owned them. They are just merely allowed to use them and give back an equal amount of the same kind back later.

What you can say, and what is easier to imagine, is that there is a demand for 150%. Demands don't necessarily need to be fulfilled though
Take Covid for example. People had a demand for 500% the usual amount of toilet paper/shopping trip , but super markets still started refusing giving them more than their 100% at some point.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't see what that would change.

Not even every platform even allows it atm. It does mix things up a bit though.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Again, I'm not aware that hedge funds short sold each other, but what if they did? If a hedge fund is publicly traded, why would it be immune to short-selling when Gamestop isn't?

The point isn't that fonds should be immune being shortened, but against the mix of deliberately changing the value of a stock the fond trades in, and then shorting the fond itself.

Especially given that it's rather easy to find out which stocks a fond trades in...

That's actually similar to having a contract, adding a penalty to it, and then working specifically towards the other party not being able to fulfill their part. Which is, at least in Europe, illegal.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Your evidence is anecdotal (Gamestop has thousands of locations), and to have an informed opinion on it, I'd need to know a lot more on the particulars and on the business in general.

Which is why I added an if in the first place. Point being that if there other stores are distributed in the same way, it becomes a lot easier to see at least a pat of the problem.
And they aren't the only ones having it, companies expanding much more than they should is actually not that uncommon.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Why? Why should it matter if vaccine companies are short-sold? And why wouldn't it matter if Gamestop is? You sound a bit like you think it's fine to run over a shop clerk, and but not a doctor.

As mean as it may sound, one sells a product to keep people healthy. Health and Life being human rights, entertainment as such is not.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Seems so, as it even says that several are exempt from the ban. It seems to mainly refer to the ones who are part of major indices.

So there is a ban.

No, because you could argue the same for regular stock trading.

Yes. It's just a matter of degree, of benefits vs risk. The benefits of stock trading are relatively easy to see. Those of short-selling are much more questionable.

Carol lending out her share doesn't magically increase the actual amount of total shares available though.

There is no functional difference between Carol and Alice.

The total amount of actually existing shares is still just 100%, even if you lend some of them out.

Yes. And that remains true whether the sum of IOUs is 50%, 100%, or 140% of the float.

This used to be less blurry when shares were still physical.

You could do short selling with physical stocks. And still get 140%. That's the thing with short selling - the "owner" of the stock doesn't have it anymore. He or she has an IOU from the borrower. So what you have in "physical existence" in the system is still 100% of the stocks, and a bunch of IOUs.

Uhm no, short-selling doesn't require calculations with more than 100% per se.

It doesn't, but it makes it possible.

Basically, you are just betting on it falling, rather than rising by first borrowing at price X, selling them at y>x, and by the time you have to give them back at y<x to make a profit from the difference.

I know what short selling is. And you're doing more than betting, because stock actually changes hands.

You could of course argue that the lender still owes the share,

I think you mean "own", and no, they're owed a share. A small but important distinction.

however, the person who borrowed them never actually owned them. They are just merely allowed to use them and give back an equal amount of the same kind back later.

They're allowed to sell it, the new owner is the buyer. And that's the thing: they own it, whole and entire, and can do whatever it you can do with stock you own. Including lending it for short selling, in some jurisdictions.

What you can say, and what is easier to imagine, is that there is a demand for 150%.

I find it nonsensical more than easier to imagine.

Demands don't necessarily need to be fulfilled though
Take Covid for example. People had a demand for 500% the usual amount of toilet paper/shopping trip , but super markets still started refusing giving them more than their 100% at some point.

Nothing to do with short selling, unless people were short selling toilet paper. Which might have been a good idea, but there's no infrastructure for it.

Not even every platform even allows it atm. It does mix things up a bit though.

I mean I don't know what it does for your 100% limit, or rather why you think it changes something one way or the other.

The point isn't that fonds should be immune being shortened, but the mix of deliberately changing the value of a stock the fond trades in, and then shorting the fond itself.

Especially given that it's rather easy to find out which stocks a fond trades in...

That's actually like having a contract, adding a penalty to it, and then working specifically towards the other party not being able to fulfill their part. Which is, at least in Europe, illegal.

Why don't you tell me, in simple terms, what you think hedge funds did to each other, and why you object to it?

Which is why I added an if in the first place. Point being that if there other stores are distributed in the same way, it becomes a lot easier to see at least a pat of the problem.

I don't even know that the location of the stores you were talking about is a problem.

And they aren't the only ones having it, companies expanding much more than they should is actually not that uncommon.


As mean as it may sound, one sells a product to keep people healthy. Health and Life being human rights, entertainment as such is not.

Neither is short selling, or much of goes on in Wall Street.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So there is a ban.

Yes and no, and yes, but also no.
Because not every stock is part of DAX.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It doesn't, but it makes it possible.

You can still do it without it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I know what short selling is. And you're doing more than betting, because stock actually changes hands.

It's still a bet.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I think you mean "own", and no, they're owed a share. A small but important distinction.

I know the distinction, and still phrased it like that on purpose.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

They're allowed to sell it, the new owner is the buyer. And that's the thing: they own it, whole and entire, and can do whatever it you can do with stock you own. Including lending it for short selling, in some jurisdictions.

Doesn't contradict what I wrote at all. You don't have to be the owner of an object to sell it. Having permission to sell it is actually enough. in fact, in some jurisdictions, even a mere custodian can derogate enough rights to make you the legal owner of an object.

Point is, the middlemen, i.e. the lendee, still owes the same amount of shares at day X, with the lender having a right to getting it back.
Short-selling isn't even that new btw, and takes it roots in ancient rome in the forms of wheat loans.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Nothing to do with short selling, unless people were short selling toilet paper. Which might have been a good idea, but there's no infrastructure for it.

You also took it apart from the point where I said you can argue demand being higher than actual availability.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Why don't you tell me, in simple terms, what you think hedge funds did to each other, and why you object to it?

I never said they did, I said it would be interesting to know whether the redditers did it, and that I don't think hedgefonds would do that to one another.

My suspicion is that some of them might have first started the entire "buy gamesstop" thing, while planning on shortening the hedge at the same time.

As I said, it's a "I wonder if" thing, not that any of them actually did it.


i.e. Betting on the hedge's failure, and then deliberately, causing the problem leading to the failure, in two separate steps.

Sorry, I really can't explain it better, also it's just me wondering whether they might have done it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't even know that the location of the stores you were talking about is a problem.

As I said, 10 minutes on foot away from each other. Both technically not in bad locations.

The, probably better location, is the one 10 minutes away, however, the other is pretty much directly next to an underground, and also train, station. I take you can see how the vicinity to a major train and underground station would increase rent to everything within a certain radius.
That both locations pretty much inflate each other's rent is just one side of the problem though. The other is that they are too close to each other too.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Neither is short selling, or much of goes on in Wall Street.

I never claimed it was, I said that I think facilities contributing to healthcare should have special protection. That's a huge difference.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Carol lending out her share doesn't magically increase the actual amount of total shares available though.
The total amount of actually existing shares is still just 100%, even if you lend some of them out.
This used to be less blurry when shares were still physical.

You are confusing number of shares with trade volume. If there is 1 total share and A short-sells to B who then short-sells to C who then does the same to D, you have 300% volume but the number of shares didn't change at all. The form is absolutely irrelevant as this can be done regardless of being digital or physical.

This is perfectly legal in the US. It is also a morally disgusting practice.

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

I never said they did, I said it would be interesting to know whether the redditers did it, and that I don't think hedgefonds would do that to one another.

You can easily look this up. Martin Shkreli did it in 2015, Third Point and Icahn in 2012, Porsche did it in 2008 and there are many more examples. Point being that yes, hedgefonds very much do that to one another.

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

My suspicion is that some of them might have first started the entire "buy gamesstop" thing, while planning on shortening the hedge at the same time.

My suspicion is that the Californian wildfires were caused by Jewish space lasers. You are free to believe whatever you want but if you come forward with these claims you have to present an actual basis for it. Which alas you have yet to do. If you base the entirety of your argument on some fiction then you do not have a position at all.

[Sheba]

AC-Phoenix, if you actually reasearched a bit on the reddit side, you'd have found out that it was mostly an accident that snowballed with more redditors joining after they found out hedge funders actually tried to short sell GME and smelled profit (for some) and blood (a lot of hatred from 2008).

the original redditor purchased it because he actually believed that Gamestop would try something to adapt to the pandemics and absolutely everyone told him to NOT do that.

So no, no reddit/Anonymous conspiracy.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

My suspicion is that the Californian wildfires were caused by Jewish space lasers. You are free to believe whatever you want but if you come forward with these claims you have to present an actual basis for it. Which alas you have yet to do. If you base the entirety of your argument on some fiction then you do not have a position at all.

If you had actually read the entire conversion you would have seen that I wrote that I wondered whether/if, I never said they actually did.

What I did indeed say, is that I suspect some of them might have done it. Which requires no proof on my part at all, as I never declared it a fact.

What did, and still does, require proof is Donald Trump's claims of voter fraud, as he actually said that it did happen. He didn't say he suspects it, and it needs to be looked at - he flat out claimed it to be a fact.


Point is, people obviously wanted to make a quick buck there, and buying the stocks up first, and then shorting the hedge would be a good way to do just that.
The possibility justifies the suspicion that someone might have actually done that.

And again, suspicion =/= fact, and I never claimed they are the same either.

To provide proof for whether they did it or not, you'd need access to their trading accounts btw.

[shmaster]

Bumping this up with Melvin going down.
Hopefully I can see Citadel in debris someday.
Anyway, June 3rd is coming soon. Hopefully a couple more hedges crumble by then.
Biden better not postpone order 14032....