[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

Search:


View post   

>> No.30295355 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1605304105745.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
30295355

>>30294920
>apparently closed
ask yourself what gave you that impression?
>>30295025
read OP
>>29834611
>>29947221
>>29947795
https://gmetruth.com/

>> No.30235372 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1588400464350.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
30235372

>>30233789
I'm back from the shower
>first, let's assume they're selling these shares without already owning
you mean contracts? yes they are almost certainly doing that.
>so shouldn't we still be worried if shorts are passing the buck to MMs?
I don't think so look at this old post of mine >>29947221
If they can actually cover with the calls, it should be around the same as them buying.
>there's no way they'd accept these deep ITM calls without already owning the underlying shares.
I think there is, personally, this is an unlike event after all, might happen once in history.

>> No.30165585 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1590695682342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>30165271
>sow doubt
>without data
I wonder what the fuck you all are arguing about.
I only look at the numbers, the data, only they matter, and last time I checked I liked the odds a lot.
what a waste of time reading all these replies.
I can deduce only that you are a gigantic faggot.

>> No.30150282 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1585439933116.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
30150282

>>30150135
there's plenty of evidence suggesting we are going to at least $800, how are people so impatient.
They don't even need to short attack the price just wait and the ADHD will get off even on green days

>> No.30077027 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1594734489139.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
30077027

>>30074710
Ok I've got to say, the prices exploding on wednesday, when the market makers actually need to finally buy the shares seem to make sense.
transcribed the most important part of his video
>the gamma squeeze, how come it happens on a wednesday? options expire on fridays, so don't they get their shares on monday?
>well yes but they don't settle until wednesday, and so the market makers aren't actually required to buy the shares until wednesday.
this is the first time I'm hearing this, so the actual consequence from the rise last week might be seen only tomorrow? interesting.

>> No.29936739 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1612525442960.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29936739

>>29923481
agreed only specifically about the date thing and how that's FUD.
it might be the dip day actually.
this guy has the best thorough rebuttal to Pixel's DD.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/lup27l/march_19_is_not_likely_to_be_lift_off/
>March 19th could actually turn out to be the day of the Mother Of All Short Attacks (MOASA!). Except it won’t be a short attack but a reaction to the gamma squeeze.
It's really worth a complete read, this guy has a way better head than Pixel does.
by just including the AI prediction a retard flag was set, but it could just be his ignorance about how AI usually works (historical data).
but the other obvious this is the XRT puts he mentions, which he doesn't explain why it should be a good thing. If options traders were expecting GME to explode wouldn't they have calls instead of puts? I haven't thought this through so maybe there's some interaction with rebalancing I'm missing. Which is why he should have explained, why didn't he?
> The 10k $ 800 calls say nothing. There are 30k such calls for 03/05. So much more than on the big day you said. These calls are bought in bulk simply because they are so OTM that they are very cheap and good for hedging. No predictions for a date can be read from this.

>> No.29911310 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1592950386930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29911310

>>29910454
>Shorts are people who sold, they're not accounted among the owners.
yes, though I'm pretty sure both the person who owns the share and lent it to the shorter, and the person who bought the short are counted, even if the shorter isn't.
see "Short Selling" here:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/institutional_holdings.asp

>> No.29841824 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1611072660060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29841824

>>29834884
Just woke up.
Assuming it was you that read up on shorting through ETFs I give you my thanks.
In that screenshot you can't tell when which of the values on the table were reported. So while not entirely accurate to the current state it is still a good sign.
>>29835233
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/institutional_holdings.asp
This is a good read, in short it's a combination of high short selling and slow updates.
Expanding on this, exactly because of delayed and unsynchronised updates between institutions this data is very complicated to assess.
See these past discussions about another source on these institutional holdings, from https://fintel.io/so/us/gme
>>29079683 (Cross-thread)#
>>29075007 (Cross-thread)#
>>29074476 (Cross-thread)#

>> No.29812389 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1602286311807.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29812389

>>29812275
AH and premarket threads at by far the best time for discussion now, market hours are pure frenzy.
glad to see you here, I'm probably going to sleep now though.

>> No.29795770 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1602695588434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29795770

>>29795228
also, the shorting fee increased from 1% to 12%, finally.

>> No.29792432 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1596786112159.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29792432

>>29789122
>>29790547
honestly, it's like you say, the only play for us is holding until this is all over anyway; all data is sparse and fucked with, it's hard to theorize.
for now the data still says there is something afoot and my tickets are already bought.
>some /FUCKING MADLAD/ downed the fed to prove a point
I feel like a schizo believing this but the coincidence is astronomical.

>> No.29771318 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1590505821790.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29771318

the theory goes that they are severely overshorted, and didn't cover the majority in the first bump in January. The gamma squeeze is just one catalyst, if the short squeeze happens we can go even higher.
but it will be a bumpy ride, with a possible massive dump before the explosion, and with no guarantees. I believe it's more likely than not given the data we have though.
Not only that, but look at the shorts made just in the previous days, data in the filename
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210223.txt
>1,772,742
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210224.txt
>11,911,548
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210225.txt
>33,187,254
now, 33M shorts in 25 could be swing trading, but in Jan 24 there were no dips, either people are still shorted or they lost a lot of money.
If you can't hold a -50% in a day don't buy this.
FOMO and swingfags get the rope.

>> No.29766212 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1586882871420.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29766212

>>29765642
the theory goes that they are severely overshorted, and didn't cover the majority in the first bump in January. The gamma squeeze is just one catalyst, if the short squeeze happens we can go even higher.
but it will be a bumpy ride, with a possible massive dump before the explosion, and with no guarantees. I believe it's more likely than not given the data we have though.
shorts made just in the previous days, data in the filename
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210223.txt
>1,772,742
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210224.txt
>11,911,548
http://regsho.finra.org/CNMSshvol20210225.txt
>33,187,254
now, 33M shorts in 25 could be swing trading, but in Jan 24 there were no dips, either people are still shorted or they lost a lot of money.
If you can't hold a -50% in a day don't buy this

>> No.29657344 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1610137394733.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29657344

>>29656955
This is my bet too, but be careful with kikery, like last time.

>> No.29630089 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1593814193720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29630089

>>29611893
>>29615535
>>29611893
people still fall for this, impressive

>> No.29609693 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1613782496640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29609693

>>29609153
Shills gonna get a raise from this one LMAO

>> No.29436961 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1613782496640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29436961

>>29432485
Hope you bought into GME retard, we're going to the moon

>> No.29406828 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, detectivesheep.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29406828

>>29406623
Been here longer than you i guaruntee it

>> No.29328960 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1593695660112.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29328960

>>29328610
thanks for the reminder

>> No.29178840 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1598704381172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29178840

>>29176905
Morgan Stanley bought at $12-$20, didn't sell at ~$400 and is still holding.
https://fintel.io/so/us/gme/morgan-stanley
>2021-02-16 - Morgan Stanley has filed a 13F-HR form disclosing ownership of 4,275,838 shares of GameStop Corp. (US:GME) with total holdings valued at $80,556,000 USD as of 2020-12-31. Morgan Stanley had filed a previous 13F-HR on 2020-11-13 disclosing 1,995,842 shares of GameStop Corp. at a value of $20,358,000 USD. This represents a change in shares of 114.24 percent and a change in value of 295.70 percent during the quarter.

>> No.29155048 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1612522919805.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29155048

>>29153998
btw for retards, they bought at $12-$20 and didn't sell at the peak ~$400.

>> No.29039737 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1602264527565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
29039737

>>29039432
>They are going to claim they covered up until the boom.
they already did in the test.
>I understand that part of the focus of this hearing is the decisions of stock trading platforms to limit trading in GameStop. I want to make clear at the outset that Melvin Capital played absolutely no role in those trading platforms’ decisions. In fact, Melvin closed out all of its positions in GameStop days before platforms put those limitations in place. Like you, we learned about those limits from news reports.
The limitations were put in place in Jan 29.
the SI report is from what date again?
>Settlement Date 1/29/2021 and Due Date 2/2/2021
yeah I'm thinking absolutely not covered "all of its positions".
not even by a fucking mile

>> No.28980359 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1601798484975.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
28980359

>>28979174
>In fact, Melvin closed out all of its positions in GameStop days before platforms put those limitations in place
The limitations were put in place in Jan 29.
the SI report is from what date again?
>Settlement Date 1/29/2021 and Due Date 2/2/2021
yeah I'm thinking absolutely not covered "all of its positions".
not even by a fucking mile

>> No.28895564 [View]
File: 389 KB, 488x492, 1603717052817.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
28895564

>>28895352
institutions hold more than 100% of the shares, just look at % total shares held, which means the short squeeze is in good hands now.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]