This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Stonks  (Read 1365 times)

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2021, 11:48:37 PM »
Discord bans 'WallStreetBets' server for "hate speech".
Facebook bans 'Robinhood Stock Traders' group for "adult sexual exploitation".

Does anyone believe even for a second the stated reasons?

Nope.  :)

Interesting Robinhood commercial from a month ago in this segment of Tucker... ;D

https://youtu.be/S0HvhZIyfag

...and, as Portnoy says wouldn't refusing to allow people to trade be 'market manipulation?'

btw, where is everybody from the other thread who didn't believe us when we told them it wasn't a true 'free market' ?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 11:51:54 PM by moonsweeper »
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2424
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2021, 02:21:08 AM »
Several federal suits have been filed against Robinhood, including at least one class action suit:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood-customers-sue-over-removal-of-gamestop
https://www.pcmag.com/news/robinhood-faces-class-action-lawsuit-for-blocking-gamestop-stock-buys

Relevant quote:
Quote from: PC Mag
The same complaint alleges Robinhood broke financial regulations under FINRA by failing to “make every effort to execute a marketable customer order that it receives fully and promptly.”

"Robinhood is pulling securities like GME from its platform in order to slow growth and help benefit individuals and institutions who are not Robinhood customers but are Robinhood large institutional investors or potential investors," it adds.

Despite the class action lawsuit, it's important to note Robinhood's customer agreement says the company has the power to prohibit stock trading for users at any time.
Does a TOS trump financial regulations?

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2021, 02:43:47 AM »
Several federal suits have been filed against Robinhood, including at least one class action suit:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood-customers-sue-over-removal-of-gamestop
https://www.pcmag.com/news/robinhood-faces-class-action-lawsuit-for-blocking-gamestop-stock-buys

Relevant quote:
Quote from: PC Mag
The same complaint alleges Robinhood broke financial regulations under FINRA by failing to “make every effort to execute a marketable customer order that it receives fully and promptly.”

"Robinhood is pulling securities like GME from its platform in order to slow growth and help benefit individuals and institutions who are not Robinhood customers but are Robinhood large institutional investors or potential investors," it adds.

Despite the class action lawsuit, it's important to note Robinhood's customer agreement says the company has the power to prohibit stock trading for users at any time.
Does a TOS trump financial regulations?

No, the TOS does not.  In fact, absent regulatory wrongdoing by an individual investor, that particular part of the TOS may not pass regulatory muster on its own in this case since it targeted a specific stock, allowed selling, and denied buying.  Notice how the article says 'stock trading' in the general sense.
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2021, 06:25:28 AM »
...and now small investors in the Asian countries are getting involved.  This is going to be interesting.
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Null42

  • Newbie
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2021, 07:27:53 AM »
FWIW if you are actually trying to invest get a total-market index fund with a low expense ratio.

Don't look for the needle, buy the haystack. ;)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2424
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2021, 11:53:30 AM »
I don't know if it's been covered, but there's a simple mathematical reason why the losses are so steep.

If you buy a stock at $10, and things go bad, the worst that can happen is you lose the $10. On the other hand, if the stock jumps to $1,000, then you've made $990. As long as the stock keeps going up, the potential upside is infinite.

But if you short a stock at $10, that means you have to buy that stock in the future. If the stock goes to $1, then you can fulfill your side of the bargain for cheap, and get to keep the remaining $9. Which is what you're hoping for, but notice that the upside is limited to the size of your investment -- you can never make more than $10. But if the stock goes through the roof, then you're screwed. It doesn't matter how high it rises, you have to buy it. So if it jumps to $1,000, then you just lost $990. The risks are flipped when you short a stock: It's the downside that's potentially infinite.

The hedge funds that shorted the stocks should lose their shirts, and the hedge fund traders who made those decisions should lose their jobs and their reputations, because that would teach the industry a valuable lesson: Shorting stocks is dangerous.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2021, 12:19:09 PM »
Precisely.

And the fact that financial and government entities are trying (and succeeding) to screw the 'retail traders' with everything from shutting down trading to smearing them as 'white supremacists' or 'agents of foreign powers' had better be pissing people off.

Or we might as well get our sizing done for the slave collars, because that's all we'll be.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2021, 01:50:11 PM »
Wall Street bought off Boomers with massive 401k participation and a passive-if-minuscule share of the profits of financialization of our economy

But the pressure for more return is infinite.  After a 15-year period of seed corn eating through offshoring, the new growth was going to be in a gig economy that cut costs even more.

Costs such as benefits, including...401Ks

And then these masterminds don’t understand why “what’s good for the market” hypnotizes fewer and fewer people
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2021, 02:17:46 PM »
I don't know if it's been covered, but there's a simple mathematical reason why the losses are so steep.

If you buy a stock at $10, and things go bad, the worst that can happen is you lose the $10. On the other hand, if the stock jumps to $1,000, then you've made $990. As long as the stock keeps going up, the potential upside is infinite.

But if you short a stock at $10, that means you have to buy that stock in the future. If the stock goes to $1, then you can fulfill your side of the bargain for cheap, and get to keep the remaining $9. Which is what you're hoping for, but notice that the upside is limited to the size of your investment -- you can never make more than $10. But if the stock goes through the roof, then you're screwed. It doesn't matter how high it rises, you have to buy it. So if it jumps to $1,000, then you just lost $990. The risks are flipped when you short a stock: It's the downside that's potentially infinite.

The hedge funds that shorted the stocks should lose their shirts, and the hedge fund traders who made those decisions should lose their jobs and their reputations, because that would teach the industry a valuable lesson: Shorting stocks is dangerous.

Can they delay "paying back" the stocks and pay some kind of fee or penalty instead? Is the stock return date set in stone or negotiable?

The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Fergurg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • F
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2021, 02:19:09 PM »
It’s unsurprisingly being crushed by the big tech of the securities world, and will be regulated out of the realm of possibility

And those who are told to wait for government action on their behalf because these things take time, will notice.

Greed is so great they aren’t even willing to take an earned loss as the price to pay for the shared myth of equal opportunity that is the opiate of many of the masses
I'm not sure if it's the greed, or if it's the anger that a pack of proles just skinned the fuck out of them when they tried their usual racket. Eh, either works.

This is blatantly putting their thumb on the scale -- no. This is straight up taking the scales away and saying 'fuck you, peasant, how dare you cheat your betters'.

And I don't think it's going to work out well.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1354833603943931905

You have Ted Cruz straight up agreeing with AOC.

Bet you thought 2021 would be a respite from 2020's craziness...

A sidenote here, but it will become more important later, I think.

AOC responded to this by claiming that Cruz tried to have her murdered and said she will not work with him under any circumstances and demanded that he not respond to her tweets.

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 959
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2021, 02:28:30 PM »
Wall Street bought off Boomers with massive 401k participation and a passive-if-minuscule share of the profits of financialization of our economy

But the pressure for more return is infinite.  After a 15-year period of seed corn eating through offshoring, the new growth was going to be in a gig economy that cut costs even more.

Costs such as benefits, including...401Ks

And then these masterminds don’t understand why “what’s good for the market” hypnotizes fewer and fewer people

My theory from observation.

One of the unheralded effects of the 2008 crash was the de facto decoupling of Main Street from Wall Street, observable by the lack of strong correlation between the recovery of Wall Street and the geographically-inconsistent recovery of Main Street across the U.S. One of the ongoing efforts of the last 6-8 years or so is the reestablishment of that coupling, or at least the illusion thereof, so that to the average American, "Wall Street" -> "my personal financial situation".

The China Virus lockdowns pierced the veil of the illusion, as average Americans saw their personal financial situation decline, while Wall Street celebrated ongoing gains. The WallStreetBets crowd is now tearing the veil down completely.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2021, 02:29:15 PM »
I don't know if it's been covered, but there's a simple mathematical reason why the losses are so steep.

If you buy a stock at $10, and things go bad, the worst that can happen is you lose the $10. On the other hand, if the stock jumps to $1,000, then you've made $990. As long as the stock keeps going up, the potential upside is infinite.

But if you short a stock at $10, that means you have to buy that stock in the future. If the stock goes to $1, then you can fulfill your side of the bargain for cheap, and get to keep the remaining $9. Which is what you're hoping for, but notice that the upside is limited to the size of your investment -- you can never make more than $10. But if the stock goes through the roof, then you're screwed. It doesn't matter how high it rises, you have to buy it. So if it jumps to $1,000, then you just lost $990. The risks are flipped when you short a stock: It's the downside that's potentially infinite.

The hedge funds that shorted the stocks should lose their shirts, and the hedge fund traders who made those decisions should lose their jobs and their reputations, because that would teach the industry a valuable lesson: Shorting stocks is dangerous.

Can they delay "paying back" the stocks and pay some kind of fee or penalty instead? Is the stock return date set in stone or negotiable?

Each short contract as an individual agreement must close with a share returned to the original owner on the date specified.  If the borrower can’t convey a share by some means, then their trading assets start getting liquidated as necessary to cover the value of the share(s) on that date (basically the finale of Trading Places)
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2424
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2021, 02:42:51 PM »
Can they delay "paying back" the stocks and pay some kind of fee or penalty instead? Is the stock return date set in stone or negotiable?
Think of it from the other side. You loaned someone a stock worth $10. They sold it, but promised it replace it on Sunday. The stock goes through the roof, and on Sunday is worth $1,000. Do you want the stock they promised to replace, because damn it's is now worth $1,000? Or would you be happy with some token amount because they gambled badly and want you to take most of the hit?

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2021, 02:45:05 PM »
Wall Street bought off Boomers with massive 401k participation and a passive-if-minuscule share of the profits of financialization of our economy

But the pressure for more return is infinite.  After a 15-year period of seed corn eating through offshoring, the new growth was going to be in a gig economy that cut costs even more.

Costs such as benefits, including...401Ks

And then these masterminds don’t understand why “what’s good for the market” hypnotizes fewer and fewer people

My theory from observation.

One of the unheralded effects of the 2008 crash was the de facto decoupling of Main Street from Wall Street, observable by the lack of strong correlation between the recovery of Wall Street and the geographically-inconsistent recovery of Main Street across the U.S. One of the ongoing efforts of the last 6-8 years or so is the reestablishment of that coupling, or at least the illusion thereof, so that to the average American, "Wall Street" -> "my personal financial situation".

The China Virus lockdowns pierced the veil of the illusion, as average Americans saw their personal financial situation decline, while Wall Street celebrated ongoing gains. The WallStreetBets crowd is now tearing the veil down completely.

I’d agree with that.

It’s (very loosely) akin to a DM who changes individual rules in isolation that aren’t to their preferences, without understanding how different rules interact with all the others.

And then wonder why something seemingly unrelated breaks, elsewhere, as they play in the revised game.

Wall Street is good at figuring out ways to extract short term profits and analyzing first-order effects of a financial nature, but not good at understanding the social implications of broadening, and then narrowing, the cash intake trough throughout the population at large

And the people don’t understand the financial side of the game, only the balance going up or down, so they don’t understand whether what makes the balance change is to their children’s interests, or against it.

Instead they just correlate one to the other, and now that events show explicitly how mistaken that correlation was...
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2021, 02:48:28 PM »
I don't know if it's been covered, but there's a simple mathematical reason why the losses are so steep.

If you buy a stock at $10, and things go bad, the worst that can happen is you lose the $10. On the other hand, if the stock jumps to $1,000, then you've made $990. As long as the stock keeps going up, the potential upside is infinite.

But if you short a stock at $10, that means you have to buy that stock in the future. If the stock goes to $1, then you can fulfill your side of the bargain for cheap, and get to keep the remaining $9. Which is what you're hoping for, but notice that the upside is limited to the size of your investment -- you can never make more than $10. But if the stock goes through the roof, then you're screwed. It doesn't matter how high it rises, you have to buy it. So if it jumps to $1,000, then you just lost $990. The risks are flipped when you short a stock: It's the downside that's potentially infinite.

The hedge funds that shorted the stocks should lose their shirts, and the hedge fund traders who made those decisions should lose their jobs and their reputations, because that would teach the industry a valuable lesson: Shorting stocks is dangerous.

Can they delay "paying back" the stocks and pay some kind of fee or penalty instead? Is the stock return date set in stone or negotiable?

Each short contract as an individual agreement must close with a share returned to the original owner on the date specified.  If the borrower can’t convey a share by some means, then their trading assets start getting liquidated as necessary to cover the value of the share(s) on that date (basically the finale of Trading Places)

Mmmm. So wer'e in a ticking clock scenario for them now?
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung