idnib
-
Posts
5,833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by idnib
-
-
Anyone else still thinking something isn't right with Dottie?
-
54 minutes ago, Seasider too said:
It did not answer why Vision had free agency within Wanda’s massive complex of spells. If I just missed that, someone please fill me in.
I definitely still need to rewatch Age of Ultron.Yeah, it didn't answer that. What do you think about the idea that she gave him agency within since it was a retirement plan for both of them (ie in her mind everything is for him too, not just for her) and she knows he can't live outside anyway.
-
My dad will talk sometimes about the 1944 Bombay (Mumbai) port explosion and the absolute panic nearby people felt, thinking that they might be in a Pearl Harbor type of situation. All the parents and kids were running around trying to find each other and hunker down.
-
4
-
-
Enjoyed the longer episode. I did feel the pacing was a bit off but I can't put my finger on it.
It was interesting to use the TV show (versus a movie) to show the MCU's take on what Wanda's backstory looks like.
-
2
-
-
Absolutely I do remember you and I'm so sorry to hear about the loss of your husband.
-
1 hour ago, klmama said:
I just assumed that was Wanda's doing.
One of the things she can't seem to control is animals, like the stork, lobster, rabbit, and puppy, so I was getting the feeling it was not all under her jurisdiction. But I agree that if it were all under her command, she would include a sassy and handy neighbor.
-
1
-
-
I had been getting pretty suspicious of Agnes. She would always show up exactly when needed with what was needed, as if she knew what was going on even when she wasn't there.
-
1
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Bootsie said:
IMO, RobinHood customers need to consider why RobinHood is providinig them a service for FREE and figure out if that is in their best interest.
Absolutely, for all "free" services. I think it would behoove all of them to find brokerages with fees or at least an explanation of why it's free (sharing fees from loaning out shares?). Also it would be good to find brokerages with more money in hand. I've been very happy with Vanguard and take some comfort they have AUM of 6-7 trillion plus the "shareholder as owner" model.
-
17 hours ago, Bootsie said:
Yes, it is always demand and supply. I have a hard time believing, however, that the runup has been stopped by RobinHood not letting people buy. There are only a limited number of people trading on RobinHood with a limited amount of capital. The market capitalization for GameStop at today's closing price is under $16B.
Sorry for the long quote. I tried to shorten it but it won't let me delete the empty data tables.
I really don't know. My mom was injured so I've been on hold or waiting by the phone a lot this week. I was watching Twitter at the time and there really was a large momentum shift. RH tweeted it out, people stated retweeting, it spread really fast and started dropping about 2 minutes later. Previously that morning a lot of people said they had just opened accounts, which was probably really concerning to RH. Not sure if they had bought yet. This CNBC article has a chart about halfway down.
I'm not sure we can keep the problem contained to just people in RH; I would speculate other people also didn't buy or went ahead and sold because they didn't know what was going on with the chart, or didn't want to transfer money to non-RH brokers in case the same thing happened there. But I absolutely hear your point about institutional investors.
Now people are upset RH is buying a Superbowl ad instead of using the money to make trading more open again. I think the latest is you're allowed to have 100 shares total, so they have loosened it from 0 --> 1 --> 5 --> 100. I'm not sure they're reading the room.
-
I headed over to read the Mark Cuban AMA and he thinks it's basic supply and demand, but the demand was abruptly cut off when Robinhood stopped letting people buy and only sell, which I think is a good argument in line with basic economic principles, which can be in short supply(!) there. That lead to lower prices, which lead to margin calls, and so on. He said he doesn't own GME, but thinks people should hold if they can afford to because Redditors are in the process of transferring to other brokers or are waiting for Robinhood to open it up freely again, at which point it would be beneficial the price is low.
He said he buys based on certain things about the stock and as long as those things don't change, he doesn't sell depite price changes. If they do change, he re-evaluates. That said, I have no doubt he does more homework than the average Redditor.
He is also pretty clear that the SEC isn't going to help, that it's technically not market manipulation because the rules are so in favor of the hedge funds, and that lawsuits against Robinhood will probably succeed and everyone will get $4.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Bootsie said:
This article explains some of why Robinhood and other brokers limited trading in GME and other highly volatile stocks GameStop curbs put clearing houses under the spotlight | Financial Times (ft.com).
That sounds about right. But my goodness they did a terrible job of explaining their situation and I think it will haunt them forever. Saying you can't deliver helps people understand, but it also makes you look like you're unreliable when other brokers like Vanguard and Fidelity are delivering.
-
2
-
-
It would be nice to have an unlocked (and unlockable) archive of threads that were so helpful as to become legendary.
-
1
-
-
On 1/30/2021 at 10:25 AM, Bootsie said:
There is a way that this particular situation could impact GameStop but it is, in fact, the opposite of what is described here. In December GameStop filed paperwork with the SEC to be able to sell new shares of GameStop (but did not have specific plans to do so). If a company can sell new shares at $360 per share it raises a lot more money than if it can sell them at $18 per share. So GameStop is in a position now of raising more dollars with less dilution of ownership than a few weeks ago.
My understanding is they have to give notice. Do you know how much?
It would be interesting if they sold new shares and what that price would be. My instinct tells me the higher they go (within reason) the less of a sell-off they avoid and the more money they have.
-
1
-
-
You'll have to bump your writing threads too, esp the ones where you compared a bunch of writing programs. I think you brought a bunch of stuff back in a suitcase? Or am I misremembering?
-
I remembered the connection I mentioned in my first post that was bothering people. I personally find it too conspiracy-oriented, but I have to admit things seem a bit incestuous at the top.
Ken Griffin, who owns Citadel (hedge fund) gave Melvin Capital $2B this week in exchange for future revenues (exact terms not disclosed).
He also owns Citadel Securities, which is a market maker and processes Robinhood's transactions.
Some people feel there's a conflict of interest. GME was climbing quickly when the lock announcement was tweeted, causing it to fall. But nobody on RH could take advantage of the dip because they were locked out of buying and only allowed to sell, which some did due to panic. Of course the HF traders were all fine. If Melvin Capital has short positions all the way down (which they must) or still needed to cover some shorts, that would be good for both Melvin and Citadel.
Robinhood also has kind of a sketchy reputation both for their SEC fine last year, their attempt to start a non-FDIC insured bank, and how frictionless they make it to make risky trades.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:
I have not heard anything about the hedge funds holding naked shorts in this situation. The SEC provides this Key Points About Regulation SHO (sec.gov)information about naked short selling, giving some examples of legal naked short positions.
I haven't heard anything definitive either, just unsubstantiated rumors.
-
2 minutes ago, katilac said:
So when the TV guy advises buying certain stocks, he can't own or buy them himself, is that right?
I'm not sure that's always true. Although I can't remember the particulars I've seen over the years, sometimes people just have to disclose they have a position and what they position is. Some of it is probably about the law and some is about ethics and credibility.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Bootsie said:
I am not aware of any firms being grandfathered in with regards to naked shorting. There are, however, instances in which firms can be in a naked short and not be in violation of securities laws. That basically has to do with the clearing of securities from trades. That really has to do with some technical issues of how long it is before the stock is actually in your possession and what happens if the person you are borrowing from fails to fulfill their end of the contract. So, the general idea is that you cannot short stocks you do not have control over.
So it sounds like if they were naked shorting it was illegal then? It sounds like something they held for a while, not a clearing of securities.
-
I think there's no way to tell what will happen; it's a global story and when US markets are closed people pick up the stock or options in the UK, Korea, Germany, Finland, Dubai, etc. Some people who've broken the law will face no consequences, some people who didn't have much responsibility will end up carrying some. And I'm not just on one side or the other.
I have no idea if what either Gill , the hedge funds, or RH did was illegal. I have no doubt the SEC will look into all of it. Posting anonymous gains might in violation of the ethics rules for being a chartered financial analyst, but it may not be enough to be illegal in a world full of message boards (not just reddit) where people post images of their accounts, positions, gains, and losses.
Then there's the politics of it all and whether people want to go after individuals when there's a populist attitude around the whole thing. It's going to be interesting to watch. Just when I got done with an months-long slog filled with the minutiae of presidential election laws and procedures, I'm pretty sure I'm going to learn a lot more about the market and the SEC than I ever thought I would.
-
2
-
-
On 1/28/2021 at 11:24 AM, Murphy101 said:
Yes. I was having two different conversations at the same time about this and my post was a mess. Sorry.
yes. Robinhood should be investigated. I hope they did lose a lot of business but the question is did they gain a lot of business from hedge funds to make up for it? Idk yet. I also wonder if they will be the next target for populace investment activism. Why would they do this? What was their personal profit reasons for this action?
I'm getting in late to the conversation and somehow I can't get that quote above to be below me. I own GME and I've been following the Reddit folks on and off this week so I thought I'd chime in.
Wrt Robinhood's personal profit reason, they are pre-IPO and Have been through several rounds of funding. Although I have not had time to look into the veracity of this rumor, people were saying there was some kind of connection between the hedge funds that were holding short positions and the funding of RH. True or not, it spread and affected people's perception. IMO the much more likely problem was liquidity.
On 1/28/2021 at 3:11 PM, Bootsie said:A "naked short" would be illegal. A naked short would occur if I sell shares of a stock I do not have control over (so I didn't really borrow the 100 shares). It would be like I told you that I was selling you a cup of sugar--come and get it-- (but I didn't have any in the house) AND then I was counting on going and finding some sugar to buy or borrow before you got to my house.
I was under the impression that some firms (not sure who) were grandfathered in when naked shorting was made illegal. Do you know if this is the case?
On 1/28/2021 at 4:37 PM, Bootsie said:Short sellers wouldn't be trying to put GameStop out of business. They simply think that the stock of the company is going to go down in price and want to sell it now and then buy it at a lower price later. (Or, if I think they will go out of business, then I might want to short the stock.)
I've heard of instances of short sellers making a company cheap and more easy to target for buyouts and/or dismantling. And I think it can affect the business in terms of their ability to obtain loans on collateral, at better rates, or even at all. And if you're Melvin and people watch what you're doing because you make 30%, more people pile on.
4 hours ago, Bootsie said:I also haven't kept up with the specifics of the Redditors, but if they were specifically encouraging people to buy GME through RobinHood rather than another platform, RobinHood's participation might be questioned. If this letter is correct that the Redditors encouraged readers to buy GME through RobinHood, the questions that would come to my mind is why if the purpose is to let readers know that there is a good investment idea/possibility (rather than to try to manipulate price) would they care what broker is used.
There were people encouraging people to use RH. I can't know their motivations, but from what I saw it was mostly when someone wanted to jump in but the firm was saying it take 3-5 days to transfer funds. RH gives you $1000 in instant deposits to use, more if you pay for RH Gold. And the day RH changed their policies and shut down selling of GME and other shorted stocks completely, people did a 180 and were suggested TD Ameritrade as a place that was approving quickly and RH quickly fell out of favor. It could have been shilling though.
3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:They were definitely trying to manipulate the price I think. I mean the stated aim seems to have been to cause problems for the hedge funds by keeping the price high? Not to make a personal gain. But I’m guessing the law doesn’t care about the motive for the manipulation, only whether it was illegal behaviour or not. They probably didn’t think it would be so successful though.
There really wasn't a stated aim. There's a guy DFV (username deep****ingvalue) who has been posting his positions for about a year, usually without comment. He's now up $40-$50 million dollars. I think he got in on 40 cent calls last year. Other people started buying because of the 138% short. Once people were cut off on RH and people learned more about things like short ladders, it became much more of a David vs Goliath story. Then certain politicians weighed in and people started thinking of it as revenge for 2008. Cue 2008/2009 videos of people marching down Wall St. while people were celebrating and drinking champagne above them. All this happened in 3-4 days; a real whirlwind.
Now some people are in it for the money, some for fun (buy a share to say you were there), some because they never recovered from the recession, some because they hate hedge funds, some because their angry about the stimulus checks, etc.
ETA: forgot to add that DFV was doxxed by CNBC today and was on the front page of the WSJ earlier today. His real name is Keith Gill. Now that he's given interviews I think it's okay to say. He's not really a leader or anything, just someone who posts positions like any other investment forum. He's just done really well with GME.
-
4
-
-
-
15 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:
I do think the homeschool book genre needs an honest, accessible book. I'm not saying the current works are DIShonest, but I think they're either written as encouragement or they fall into the how-to category that's read by people who are already eagerly rolling up their sleeves and ready to work.
The book I want is the one Erma Bombeck would have written had she homeschooled.
-
10
-
7
-
-
It's my first year with high school and we're outsourcing Great Books and Greek so that got planned fairly early, even though there was a ton of discussion around it back in Jan/Feb/Mar and some revisits of the same stuff. We school year-round and DS's Greek teacher has already given him stuff to do before the first day of class so it feels like we didn't get much of a break.
DD's plan for next year has been somewhat neglected until now, which I feel bad about but she can do another month of "do the next thing" until we get high school up and running. I'm just now starting to figure her stuff out.
Anyone want to talk about Wandavision?
in The Chat Board
Posted
If you do re-watch, notice she's not on the bulletin board of townspeople and her house is in the (maybe?) intriguing position between Wanda and Agatha. Or it could be nothing--the MCU makes me look for little things that probably don't matter much!