2021-02-05, 05:36 | Link #61 | |
今宵の虎徹は血に飢えている
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
2021-02-05, 05:49 | Link #62 | |
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
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... Quote:
__________________
|
|
2021-02-05, 06:33 | Link #63 | |
Shitpost Gremlin
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Formerly Iwakawa base and Chaldea. Now Teyvat, the Astral Express & the Outpost
Age: 44
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2021-02-05, 08:23 | Link #64 | |
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2021-02-05, 12:05 | Link #65 | ||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2021-02-05, 20:46 | Link #66 | |
そのおっぱいで13才
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Quote:
Like, bruh, the few times I rely on you and you still can't.
__________________
|
|
2021-02-06, 00:08 | Link #67 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
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 Quote:
Last edited by scififan; 2021-02-06 at 00:25. |
|||
2021-02-06, 10:10 | Link #69 | |
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2021-02-06, 12:56 | Link #70 | ||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2021-02-06, 14:30 | Link #71 | ||||||
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Not even every platform even allows it atm. It does mix things up a bit though. Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by AC-Phoenix; 2021-02-06 at 14:57. |
||||||
2021-02-06, 15:10 | Link #72 | |||||||||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
2021-02-06, 16:07 | Link #73 | ||||||
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
Yes and no, and yes, but also no.
Because not every stock is part of DAX. You can still do it without it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. I never claimed it was, I said that I think facilities contributing to healthcare should have special protection. That's a huge difference.
__________________
|
||||||
2021-02-08, 16:52 | Link #74 | ||
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
Quote:
This is perfectly legal in the US. It is also a morally disgusting practice. Quote:
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. |
||
2021-02-09, 04:22 | Link #75 |
Shitpost Gremlin
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Formerly Iwakawa base and Chaldea. Now Teyvat, the Astral Express & the Outpost
Age: 44
|
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.
__________________
|
2021-02-09, 05:22 | Link #76 | |
Detective
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 36
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|