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 1368 times)

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2021, 02:59:18 PM »
Yes.  They’ve promised to return more shares than are available to buy (the float).

As more and more people buy shares they refuse to sell at any price, the float shrinks.

This pushes up the price of shares, as the demand for a shrinking number of shares available goes through the roof.  So long as people refuse to sell, those who shorted have to continue to offer higher prices to temp people to sell and increase the float

When the only concern is profit, this normally would equalize the share price and supply and demand would meet at a clearing point, and the shorts would clear at some loss/gain

When the motive is revenge and not profit, the laws as currently written would require the hedge fund who promised what they can’t deliver to convert all their assets to cash and lose everything they have.

Edit - this is the first-order effect, which of course would also make a share of the hedge fund worth zero, so anyone who bought a share of the hedge fund looses the value of their investment

Then you get into the banks guaranteeing the hedge fund, who have to cover any difference between the liquidated worth of the hedge fund insufficient to pay the entirety of what the hedge fund owes.

Now we’re into a game of dominoes.  Is a domino along the line big enough to absorb the losses incurred by the dominoes downstream?  This was the intent of 2009 regulation, to have dominoes in place that could absorb the losses without toppling, as backstops

But all of those laws were predicted on the idea people would sell at some price, not that they’d be willing to hold forever to push the amount owed into the stratosphere
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 03:07:57 PM by EOTB »
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

Zirunel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Z
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2021, 03:03:50 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%u2019t 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?

It goes beyond the problem of a specified date though, if the stock is climbing like a rocket, the short sellers have to start making hard choices even before the loan matures. Like, even if the contract ends a week in the future, do I buy them back now and eat a $20/share loss, or do I do it three days from now at maybe a $200/share loss?

...And if course, short sellers buying back shares and eating a loss only makes the share price go higher and higher....again, lose big now or lose bigger tomorrow
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 03:08:26 PM by Zirunel »

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2021, 03:16:37 PM »
(Edit: The following is in response to EOTB and RandyB's discussion of the decoupling of the stock market from consumers (Wall Street and Main Street). I didn't quote them because I'm not directly addressing the points they made, but since a couple people posted while I was composing this, and it isn't directly related to shorting and squeezegate, I figured I'd add a quick note at the top in case this seems out of place.)

Looking at it from a step further back might be useful.

The stock market doesn't reflect the overall economy. It just composed of publicly traded firms. Which do make up most of the capital sector, so the stock market is a reasonable proxy for the growth of the capital sector of the economy. Just not the economy as a whole.

The biggest part the stock market doesn't reflect is the consumer sector. The consumer price index (CPI), which measures the rise in price of a basket of consumer goods, is a better reflection of the consumer sector, though it's very imperfect. For instance, the basket is mostly stuff like milk and bread, and a lot of the rise in consumer prices has been in other areas, like healthcare and higher education. So it underestimates the real rise in costs to consumers. The other metric of the consumer sector is wages.

The CPI is often used as a measure of the inflation (rise in prices) of the overall economy. That's just wrong. It's a measure of the rise in prices of consumer goods, minus some of the most expensive goods, and doesn't really measure the capital sector at all. True inflation is the rise of all prices across the economy.

When prices rise (inflation) in certain areas of the economy and not in others, it's a sign of wealth redistribution. Prices have been fairly flat, when measured by the CPI or wages. But prices have been skyrocketing in education, healthcare, and the stock market has been booming. That means more money has been going into the capital sector, healthcare, and education, and less into wages and the prices of a few consumer goods.

There are a number of reasons behind this, and most have to do with the Fed. The other (equally or more true) definition of inflation is growth in the money supply. When the Fed prints money, they're not adding any real value to the economy. So the money they print dilutes the value of the existing money.

For instance, let's say you have an economy that's composed solely of chickens, there are a total of 10 chickens, and $100 to exchange them with. That means that each chicken will be worth $10. But if someone prints $50 in new bills, that doesn't cause any new chickens to appear. So what happens when you have $150, and only 10 chickens? Prices will eventually adjust, and chicken will become worth $15. So that $10 you had before, that you could have used to buy one chicken, is now only worth 2/3rd of a chicken. Your money lost 1/3rd of its value.

That's what happens when the government prints money. The money you hold is worth less. But this doesn't happen instantly. There's a ripple effect, because the people who buy a chicken when people still think 1 chicken = $10 end up with more real value (chickens), while those who wait until chickens are worth $15 before buying won't be able to afford as many chickens (so the real value of their holdings will go down).

In the real economy, what happens is the banks create the money, then they lend it out. But money generally isn't lent to consumers, it's lent to businesses. So the financial sector gets first dibs, followed by the capital sector. They can spend the money before it loses value, but by the time that money works its way through the production process and becomes your salary, it's fully deflated. That transfers the real wealth of the economy from the wage earners to the capital sector, and especially the financial sector.

Only a small part of the reason why stock markets have boomed over the last 30 years is real innovation. Most of it is just a shift of wealth from ordinary consumers to businesses, via monetary inflation. The same reason explains why Wall Street has grown, even more quickly.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 03:41:54 PM by Pat »

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2021, 03:27:32 PM »
This is all very true, but it is akin to launching into a discussion about how the moon effects tides after the Indonesian tsunamis.  I.e., yes they’re technically related, and the sudden interest in why the ocean rose up destructively provides an audience not there yesterday, but the key factor is the earthquake and not the moon
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: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2021, 03:51:44 PM »
In related news, Dogecoin, a joke cryptocurrency based on a dog meme, spiked 420% in one day. Blame the same Reddit forum that pushed GameStop and AMC. And Elon Musk.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/dogecoin-jumps-more-than-300-as-reddit-tries-to-take-on-wall-street/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-tweets-support-dogecoin-015609684.html

The war against Wall Street is just starting.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2021, 06:07:46 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.
I noticed.

Some people really do need to remain bartenders, because they're clearly too fucking stupid to be in politics.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2021, 06:24:07 PM »
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

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2021, 06:25:12 PM »
Wall Street firms starting to cut off info the public used to ignore.  Pretty sure this report will still be created regularly, even if not “published”

https://twitter.com/citronresearch/status/1355152873487798274?s=21

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store

Stonks thread or Social Media Corporations thread?  :-X

Streams of collusion joining into one
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

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2586
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2021, 08:41:15 PM »
Some people really do need to remain bartenders, because they're clearly too fucking stupid to be in politics.

There is no such thing as too fucking stupid to be in politics.
"There can be no middle ground with bigots. Bigots want to deny the rights and livelihood of people different from them. They want them to cease existing, either by going underground or by murdering them. There is no "let's meet in the middle" with that. To suggest there can be is ignorance" RPGNet

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2021, 02:27:03 AM »
Funniest thing I saw on 1-29-21

A) Elizabeth Warren defend the Wall Street Hedge Funds and demand an investigation into a
    bunch of retail traders.

B)  Janet Yellen accepted $810,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, the hedge fund that bailed out
     Melvin Capital

C) WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki's brother works for Citadel.

D)  One of the Avengers episodes I watched this morning, "Dial a Deadly Number", involved a
      finance group killing off CEOs in order to crash stock prices so they could collect after they
      shorted the companies......original air date Dec. 4, 1965 in the UK.  ;D

E)  All of the above.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 02:29:21 AM 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)

Null42

  • Newbie
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2021, 03:22:24 PM »
I don't think AOC's stupid.

She was elected by a very progressive district that no doubt enjoys the thought of being on 'the right side of history' (or perhaps the left side). She's a rookie representative, who would normally have little influence. By taking extreme positions and giving the impression of being a strong advocate for leftism, she gains media attention and thus currency she can exchange for influence among her fellow Democrats. If I'm a congressman in a left-leaning district, I am afraid of a public spat with AOC.

Similarly, her comparison of Ben Shapiro's attempt to debate her to catcalling a while back might seem silly to you and me. I agree a conservative pundit picking a fight with a progressive politician is not the same as a construction worker whistling at her as she walks by. But by making the comparison she gets to 1. pick a fight with Ben Shapiro, who with his conservative dress and big vocabulary is practically an Evil Conservative White Guy from central casting, and raise her profile 2. get lots of 'you go, girl!' support from feminists who are a big chunk of her base.

Now is all this grandstanding good for the country? That's another story.

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2021, 04:29:20 PM »
AOC is cunning in a manipulative way, but not overly bright in actual analytical ability.  That doesn't mean she isn't dangerous, it just changes the way you deal with her. It will be interesting to see how she walks the tightrope she is on. She is doing more stuff that advances the establishment policies, while still pandering to her progressive base but I don't know how long she can keep that charade up.

"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)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2021, 09:45:56 AM »
I don't think AOC's stupid.

She was elected by a very progressive district that no doubt enjoys the thought of being on 'the right side of history' (or perhaps the left side). She's a rookie representative, who would normally have little influence. By taking extreme positions and giving the impression of being a strong advocate for leftism, she gains media attention and thus currency she can exchange for influence among her fellow Democrats. If I'm a congressman in a left-leaning district, I am afraid of a public spat with AOC.

Similarly, her comparison of Ben Shapiro's attempt to debate her to catcalling a while back might seem silly to you and me. I agree a conservative pundit picking a fight with a progressive politician is not the same as a construction worker whistling at her as she walks by. But by making the comparison she gets to 1. pick a fight with Ben Shapiro, who with his conservative dress and big vocabulary is practically an Evil Conservative White Guy from central casting, and raise her profile 2. get lots of 'you go, girl!' support from feminists who are a big chunk of her base.

Now is all this grandstanding good for the country? That's another story.

  She answered what was literally a 'casting call' for politics and was backed by a guy who is single minded in his goals to creating 'change' in the USA.  She had a worthless degree and was working a dead end job.  Her job is to parrot the things that dude wants championed. I guess with regards to stupid we have to define where we want to put stupid as a level, but she is below average.  Or at least she is certainly not 'above average' on a level with most of the failed lawyers surrounding her in congress.   

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14069
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2021, 09:00:26 PM »
AOC doesn't matter. She's a puppet. Like with Xiden, it's the handlers who are the real power.

The war against Wall Street is just starting.

In our dead unAmerica, I'm betting on Wall Street. Far too important to the Uniparty.

Wall Street firms starting to cut off info the public used to ignore.  Pretty sure this report will still be created regularly, even if not “published”

https://twitter.com/citronresearch/status/1355152873487798274?s=21

It will be available for a premium membership...

Streams of collusion joining into one

Are you still refusing to see how the hedge funds are the good guys?
WaPo is here to cure your hateful bigotry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys-gamestop-story-its-hedge-funds-short-sellers/

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Stonks
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2021, 10:12:02 PM »
Are you still refusing to see how the hedge funds are the good guys?
WaPo is here to cure your hateful bigotry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys-gamestop-story-its-hedge-funds-short-sellers/
Hadn't seen that article yet.
Christ...they are a lot more worried about this than I thought.
"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)