Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Focus on companies that have value or companies in which their mission aligns with how I want the world to evolve. For example I invest in Tesla even though they are overvalued currently because I believe in their mission and the future business model.

If you continue to do this over a long enough period of time then you will stifle the amount of money that you can make.

If you are going long then it's your duty to find undervalued companies.

If you are going short then it's your duty to find overvalued companies.

Simple.

Okay these are great perspectives that make sense but I feel the process is gamed way to much. Getting people to not hold indefinitely makes sense and frees up a lot of interaction with the market. Since they have gamed shorting I will still focus on hedges that have overly shorted their positions. If they want to abuse the system then I and other apes will focus these specific scenarios.

Yeh and by finding companies where hedge funds and shorts got greedy too much you are finding potentially undervalued companies that you can profit from. The trick again is to not get greedy like the people who shorted did.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

*smug smile

Delusional smile, more like it, amirite?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Fair enough, but one is far more destructive than the other.

When has shorting ever destroyed a company?

All you're doing by shorting is betting the stock will fall, and there is an astronomical risk to that

 

[GHG]

Fair enough, but one is far more destructive than the other.

Is it though?

A company that is overvalued can dump more shares on to the market as a means of making money which will enable them to continue with potentially poor or harmful business practices.

Financing deals are also easier to come by the larger your market cap is.

If you give companies that are never making a meaningful contribution to the business world and/or society as a whole means to get access to potentially endless amounts of cash to continue their activities then who benefits other than the owners of said company? In doing so continuously you can give companies an endless cash runway. You'd think at some point enough needs to be enough right?

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Delusional smile, more like it, amirite?

sips Kool-Aid. Yes that is correct

 

[mango drank]

For example I invest in Tesla even though they are overvalued currently because I believe in their mission and the future business model.

Aw man, look what your post just caused

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Aw man, look what your post just caused

There you go all better

 

[SentientStone]

Ugh this thread has descended. Hopefully we will get back to normal after this meme stuff blows over.

Meme stocks is the new Politics forum. Lol

 

[Taxexemption]

If you continue to do this over a long enough period of time then you will stifle the amount of money that you can make.

If you are going long then it's your duty to find undervalued companies.

If you are going short then it's your duty to find overvalued companies.

Simple.



Yeh and by finding companies where hedge funds and shorts got greedy too much you are finding potentially undervalued companies that you can profit from. The trick again is to not get greedy like the people who shorted did.

I trade mostly on fundamentals. I'm skeptical of shorting. I wouldn't say it should necessarily be disallowed, but there should be clear limits as to what percentage of the float can be shorted by a company. If I can short 50% of the float, I would expect the stock would go down. Maybe I pay some financial analysts to release a negative research report right before I enter my short position, or I go out and make a public statement about negative things going on with the company.


Let me run a scenario by you. I'm looking at a stock, the CEO just sold a large amount, this could be for any reason even completely unrelated to the health of the company, maybe he wants to buy a mansion. I publicize this fact after shorting a large percentage of the stock's float, and get on TV with a bunch of graphs showing negative aspects of the companies financials, and saying that I think it could be related. There is a huge selloff already because I shorted it, and now it's in the news that there may be reasons that you should sell.


Theoretically, if I'm an investment firm, what's to stop me from shorting 50% of the float, and communicating with other firms who are also shorting some percentage but are doing it through different brokers? Could you say that it's not possible to short more than 100% of the float? There were people saying 100% of the float of GME was shorted at one point, I don't know if that is accurate, but if it is, isn't that inherently problematic that such a thing could happen?


It seems to me that short selling isn't very well regulated. It should be determined that some maximum percentage of the float can be shorted, so that people can't use it to create the appearance of a panic.


For a real world example, I own some puts on GE. I bought them because a financial analyst, Harry Markopolos, was paid to produce a report on it, and he said that their financials were fraudulent, and speculated that they would go under if there was a recession. I made some money on these puts, sold a few, and bought cheaper ones at a lower strike price which I am still holding onto. I'm doing this based on Markopolos reputation, if the company that was paid to produce the report shorted 50% of the float, would you think there was a problem with that?

 

[GHG]

There you go all better

Don't even need to go that far, just look at a 1 year chart with 1 month candles.

 

[godhandiscen]

Aw man, look what your post just caused

“Just a little pinprick
There'll be no more, ahhhhhhhhh
But you may feel a little sick”

 

[MvCSpiderman]

That seems like an extreme approach imho. To add to my previous post could you show some examples of "people" and "small companies" ?

I know that Elon Musk got into trouble with Tesla for tweeting and had to pay a 15$m fine. What other examples are out there?

It's not an extreme approach in terms of available options and an open opportunity. They already made access harder twice before blaming the public. If internet investing was further along in the early 2000's burst they likely already would have policies in place for the internet already.

I think we need to be careful about this. Hedge fund types hop on TV all the time and try and do the same thing. All those "power lunches" and "discussion groups" held at the Harvard Club in New York provides the same thing that Reddit does.

To pick off the Reddit types, but not the "lunches" is simply the powerful concentrating power at their end and not having to account for normal people banding together.

But that's what it's always been and they already done this before in multiple ways.

In the case of GME and AMC, it has more to do with people looking at short selling of stock, and lack of transparency. You shouldn't be able to short a large portion of the total stock that is being traded, that seems like manipulation to me. Many people that are still buying and holding GME do so, because they believe there is still a large short position out there, and that those short will be forced to buy a large portion of all of the stock being floated at once. This may or may not be the case, but lack of transparency creates a situation where if these people are right, they are pretty much guaranteed to make a big profit.


In the case of other "meme stocks," it pretty much comes down to the fact that a lot of people are investing in companies based on criteria other than fundamentals. I don't think you can really stop that without more or less restricting people's ability to trade in general. I don't really see there being a good case for telling people "Yeah, we are restricting your ability to buy publicly traded companies."


As to restricting peoples speech on the internet, what do you think we should be able to restrict?

"We have a new process, and we believe this will lead to future profitability,"

"We have X, and we think that's good,"

What do you think is happening that is crossing the line?

It's not me thinking anything, it's them clearly trying to create a line so they can say people crossed it and it's getting support. I would argue they could have done it under the radar if Robinhood didn't screw up making the Gamestop thing hit the spotlight hard and then made themselves a well known untrustworthy company.

Only reason why Robinhood wasn't in more trouble is because their years of pr has got less knowledgeable people thinking they are trapped with no other options. Which there are plenty. But millions of their users don't know that even post GS.

This goes both ways and has done since the beginning of investing.

Should we ban TV, radio and the press as well while we are at it?

Except in most cases one way always ends up ahead. If there's an opprotunity to come up with some jargon name to make it seem like there's a difference then they have all the cards.

 

[bigedole]

We already do that

And what about failing companies or companies that have stagnated?

You can't make money betting against them, prices are going to arbitarily inflate

Shorting is no less ethical than longing. They're just tools that regulate the market.

The problem is that people can short fictional shares. The concept seems incredibly flawed and we're seeing it play out before our eyes.

 

[MvCSpiderman]

As for shorting, personally I think short sales of ghost stock should be illegal but puts should stay because it's just a reverse call and requires the same fundamentals and guessing based on market trends, just in the other direction.

However I don't support the scam of selling ghost options, that can lead to unlimited losses.

 

[GHG]

I trade mostly on fundamentals. I'm skeptical of shorting. I wouldn't say it should necessarily be disallowed, but there should be clear limits as to what percentage of the float can be shorted by a company. If I can short 50% of the float, I would expect the stock would go down. Maybe I pay some financial analysts to release a negative research report right before I enter my short position, or I go out and make a public statement about negative things going on with the company.


Let me run a scenario by you. I'm looking at a stock, the CEO just sold a large amount, this could be for any reason even completely unrelated to the health of the company, maybe he wants to buy a mansion. I publicize this fact after shorting a large percentage of the stock's float, and get on TV with a bunch of graphs showing negative aspects of the companies financials, and saying that I think it could be related. There is a huge selloff already because I shorted it, and now it's in the news that there may be reasons that you should sell.


Theoretically, if I'm an investment firm, what's to stop me from shorting 50% of the float, and communicating with other firms who are also shorting some percentage but are doing it through different brokers? Could you say that it's not possible to short more than 100% of the float? There were people saying 100% of the float of GME was shorted at one point, I don't know if that is accurate, but if it is, isn't that inherently problematic that such a thing could happen?


It seems to me that short selling isn't very well regulated. It should be determined that some maximum percentage of the float can be shorted, so that people can't use it to create the appearance of a panic.


For a real world example, I own some puts on GE. I bought them because financial analyst, Harry Markopolos, was paid to produce a report on it, and he said that their financials were fraudulent, and speculated that they would go under if there was a recession. I made some money on these puts, sold a few, and bought cheaper ones at a lower strike price which I am still holding onto. I'm doing this based on Markopolos reputation, if the company that was paid to produce the report shorted 50% of the float, would you think there was a problem with that?

Yeh it's not perfect and the scenarios you outlined come about due to greed - it's not enough to make some money dragging a company down to it's true value, sometimes they will want to squeeze everything possible out of it, even if it means shorting more than the available float and running the company in to the ground through being slanderous.

Collusion happens on the way up as much as it happens on the way down, it's just that the negative impact of seeing a company going out of business and people losing their jobs is easier to see, understand, and for some people it's a lot more relatable. The negative impact of a poorly run or a fraudulent company being given too much money over a long period of time is a lot more difficult to uncover and everything will look great until it suddenly isn't.

As with anything balance is important and it's when things are massively out of balance that we see scenarios like GME.

But hey, this would be boring if everyone "played by the rules". Despite what some people might think in this thread I don't have a problem with people making money on the likes of GME and AMC, it's just that people need to recognise it for what it is in the same way that the hedge funds should expect to get burnt if they are being reckless and shorting more than 100% of the float.

In getting greedy people are becoming very much like the people they claim to hate (the hedge funds). In a lot of cases it's much easier for the hedge funds to come back from monumental losses, while it isn't for us so we need to recognise that and stay on top of risk management.

 

[12Goblins]

So the doctor I work with made 3 million off amc. What a madman.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So the doctor I work with made 3 million off amc. What a madman.

What a lousy day. BB shot up at the open and I was up big. It ends up less than +5% (was +30%). Combined with the other stocks I have which trended down, I ended up after all that:

+319.30

 

[Raven117]

So the doctor I work with made 3 million off amc. What a madman.

Like hearing casino bells going off...

 

[down 2 orth]

The problem is that people can short fictional shares. The concept seems incredibly flawed and we're seeing it play out before our eyes.

But why have the government regulate this when people are already doing an excellent job of regulating it on their own?

 

[GHG]

He's livid lmao but the figures he cited at the start of his rant are correct. Most people are playing this for the crazy volatility at the moment rather than forcing any potential short squeeze. Huge gamma squeeze so far but the shorts don't seem to give a fuck.

 

[godhandiscen]

But why have the government regulate this when people are already doing an excellent job of regulating it on their own?

Because given the trend, someone “important” will lose a lot of money and the government will bail them out.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Rumors are suggesting PSTH’s target is Universal Music Group. The kiddies who wanted Subway or Stripe are bailing. I’ll average down tomorrow.

 

[Taxexemption]

Because given the trend, someone “important” will lose a lot of money and the government will bail them out.

You have no idea how much I want a publicly traded company to declare bankruptcy and for the government to announce a bailout. If I see a GM like scenario, I'm putting a lot of money in the second a bailout is announced. As fast as markets move these days, I might not make any money though. I worry the markets are so fast the second they announced a bailout the company would be worth more than before they declared bankruptcy.

 

[godhandiscen]

You have no idea how much I want a publicly traded company to declare bankruptcy and for the government to announce a bailout. If I see a GM like scenario, I'm putting a lot of money in the second a bailout is announced. As fast as markets move these days, I might not make any money though. I worry the markets are so fast the second they announced a bailout the company would be worth more than before they declare bankruptcy.

It is not the publicly traded companies that will get a bailout. The institutional short investors who will lose money for connected people are the ones that will get a bailout.

 

[Taxexemption]

It is not the publicly traded companies that will get a bailout. The institutional short investors who will lose money for connected people are the ones that will get a bailout.

That's a distinct possibility. I have a hard time seeing bailouts if it's not systemic, and if it's systemic other corporations should be in trouble.

 

[GHG]

Jobs report was a miss so that's good news for the markets in the short term at least.

 

[Raven117]

You have no idea how much I want a publicly traded company to declare bankruptcy and for the government to announce a bailout. If I see a GM like scenario, I'm putting a lot of money in the second a bailout is announced. As fast as markets move these days, I might not make any money though. I worry the markets are so fast the second they announced a bailout the company would be worth more than before they declared bankruptcy.

Publicly traded companies go bankrupt all the time. Equity gets zero all the time.

This Is not a great strategy

 

[Taxexemption]

Publicly traded companies go bankrupt all the time. Equity gets zero all the time.

This Is not a great strategy

Did you read only half the first sentence and then respond, or were you unable to wrap your mind around the words that followed?

 

[GHG]

For those of you watching AMC there's interesting activity in next weeks options, more so on the put side than on the call side at the moment, could lead to a gamma trap if things don't balance out on Monday when people reload their options for the week.

If it has a huge run today then that all changes as well of course since people will be a lot more optimistic and that will lead to more call buying. Things are in the balance at the moment.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Fuck it. I bailed on BB at $18 cdn. Made about 25%. Good enough. cant take the roller coaster ride.

 

[Raven117]

Did you read only half the first sentence and then respond, or were you unable to wrap your mind around the words that followed?

Read the whole thing. It shows you fundamentally don’t understand how bankruptcy works.

 

[Taxexemption]

Read the whole thing. It shows you fundamentally don’t understand how bankruptcy works.

What is a government bailout? What is GM?

 

[Raven117]

What is a government bailout? What is GM?

If you knew anything about bankruptcy, you would know that old equity in GM was wiped out. New Equity in bankruptcy is typically not available to retail investors and instead is secured debt (and sometimes unsecured debt) converted into new equity.

You might have the opportunity to trade old equity "over the counter", but it is not listed on a major exchange. If you did that for GM, you would have been wiped out.

I suppose you could buy new equity after the companies emergence from bankruptcy, but that is just a normal investment and not really what you are saying.

The only industry I would say that a bailout would be imminent are major MAJOR financial institutions like JPMorgan, AIG, Goldman, etc. Institutions (as they said) are too big too fail (ie. Lehman).

You don't understand bankruptcy or how this this in a distressed posture.

 

[Taxexemption]

I understand that the stock was delisted and you would have to buy it differently than normal. Why would you have been wiped out if you did that? The stock was trading on markets at 30 cents to 1 dollar a share for awhile after the bankruptcy was announced. Is there something funky that goes on where when a share is converted from old to new its not the same number of shares? My thought was basically that because the government promised a bailout if the stock price didn't go back to what it was beforehand it would be deeply embarrassing politically to Obama. I would have bought shares at any price under 30 dollars a share under the assumption that Obama and the people that work for him would do anything to avoid the political embarrassment of bailing out a company and then it never succeeding.

 

[Raven117]

I understand that the stock was delisted and you would have to buy it differently than normal. Why would you have been wiped out if you did that? The stock was trading on markets at 30 cents to 1 dollar a share for awhile after the bankruptcy was announced. Is there something funky that goes on where when a share is converted from old to new its not the same number of shares? My thought was basically that because the government promised a bailout if the stock price didn't go back to what it was beforehand it would be deeply embarrassing politically to Obama. I would have bought shares at any price under 30 dollars a share under the assumption that Obama and the people that work for him would do anything to avoid the political embarrassment of bailing out a company and then it never succeeding.

Good questions to ask.

In bankruptcy, "old equity" (which includes the shares traded over the counter), is almost always wiped out. Literally, they cancel the shares. They get nothing. Very rarely is "old equity" converted into new equity.

During a bankruptcy, sometimes, stock speculators like to roll the dice to see if they are what's called "in the money." (In bankruptcy, there is something called the absolute priority rule. This means, secured lenders get paid first, unsecured lenders paid second, equity dead last (there is more to it, but thats the general idea). What this means is that secured lenders have to be paid in full (or agree not to be paid in full) for any other payment to be made to claims lower in priority. Sometimes, value can swing into the "old equity", but its rare.

What happened in GM was that the government made GM a loan (I don't recall whether it was secured or not) before the bankruptcy. The government literally owned part of GM for awhile through the conversion of their debt into equity. The secured debt was converted into "new equity."

If you would have done what you proposed, you would have had a total loss of your investment. Now, once, GM emerged from bankruptcy and started trading, then thats a different analysis and perhaps you could have made a return on your investment.

 

[Taxexemption]

Good questions to ask.

In bankruptcy, "old equity" (which includes the shares traded over the counter), is almost always wiped out. Literally, they cancel the shares. They get nothing. Very rarely is "old equity" converted into new equity.

During a bankruptcy, sometimes, stock speculators like to roll the dice to see if they are what's called "in the money." (In bankruptcy, there is something called the absolute priority rule. This means, secured lenders get paid first, unsecured lenders paid second, equity dead last (there is more to it, but thats the general idea). What this means is that secured lenders have to be paid in full (or agree not to be paid in full) for any other payment to be made to claims lower in priority. Sometimes, value can swing into the "old equity", but its rare.

What happened in GM was that the government made GM a loan (I don't recall whether it was secured or not) before the bankruptcy. The government literally owned part of GM for awhile through the conversion of their debt into equity. The secured debt was converted into "new equity."

If you would have done what you proposed, you would have had a total loss of your investment. Now, once, GM emerged from bankruptcy and started trading, then thats a different analysis and perhaps you could have made a return on your investment.

Thanks, I was aware of some of that but not that shares are sometimes cancelled. That would change my strategy, but I would still make the same general assumption about the stock price depending on who was in office.



For me it's primarily a political calculation. I think in this set of circumstances it's deeply embarrassing and discredits the idea of government intervention in the economy for the government to bail out a company and for it not to get back to the point that it was originally.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm slightly down. Probably only my second or third slightly down day in 3 weeks.

What a great 3 week run.

I bought some Unum shares. US insurance company. Hoping it rebounds to $40 and bail ship.

 

[Raven117]

Thanks, I was aware of some of that but not that shares are sometimes cancelled. That would change my strategy, but I would still make the same general assumption about the stock price depending on who was in office.



For me it's primarily a political calculation. I think in this set of circumstances it's deeply embarrassing and discredits the idea of government intervention in the economy for the government to bail out a company and for it not to get back to the point that it was originally.

No worries. Happy to help explain it. (And don't think, sometimes cancelled, its almost always cancelled).

As for the political calculation, not quite sure your angle here. You can take a bet that a government bailout is coming and that they company DOESN'T have to declare bankruptcy. (IE, AIG type situation). You can take a bet that the company will do well AFTER bankruptcy. But to actively trade in over the counter stuff during a bankruptcy is really not a good strategy.

For retail investors, there is little opportunity to get involved in the midst of a bankruptcy where the process is driven be secured lenders and folks willing to invest in the "NEW" company after emergence. Its possible to unsecured claims trade, but that is mostly for institutional types (and you have to do it on a mass scale basis).

 

[Taxexemption]

No worries. Happy to help explain it. (And don't think, sometimes cancelled, its almost always cancelled).

As for the political calculation, not quite sure your angle here. You can take a bet that a government bailout is coming and that they company DOESN'T have to declare bankruptcy. (IE, AIG type situation). You can take a bet that the company will do well AFTER bankruptcy. But to actively trade in over the counter stuff during a bankruptcy is really not a good strategy.

For retail investors, there is little opportunity to get involved in the midst of a bankruptcy where the process is driven be secured lenders and folks willing to invest in the "NEW" company after emergence. Its possible to unsecured claims trade, but that is mostly for institutional types (and you have to do it on a mass scale basis).

Any time after the newly shares emerge if the price is still under an average price the year before bankruptcy I would buy it.


It comes down to a political calculation. If GM had never recovered in share price it would have been a problem for Obama and his legacy, and it would be regularly talked about, the most powerful man in the country had an interest in the stock price.

 

[Raven117]

Any time after the newly shares emerge if the price is still under an average price the year before bankruptcy I would buy it.


It comes down to a political calculation. If GM had never recovered in share price it would have been a problem for Obama and his legacy, and it would be regularly talked about, the most powerful man in the country had an interest in the stock price.

That makes some sense. Often, companies that emerge from bankruptcy have a trimmed up balance sheet. (Thats the theory anyway).

Yeah, but do recall, they made the bailout, went bankruptcy anyway. Then emerged. Government took a haircut on that I believe.

Anyway, hope I didn't come across too condescending. I have alot of experience with this topic.

 

[Taxexemption]

That makes some sense. Often, companies that emerge from bankruptcy have a trimmed up balance sheet. (Thats the theory anyway).

Yeah, but do recall, they made the bailout, went bankruptcy anyway. Then emerged. Government took a haircut on that I believe.

Anyway, hope I didn't come across too condescending. I have alot of experience with this topic.

It's cool.

From what I am reading the government did take a loss. There were lots of news stories when the price was going up making it sound like the government actually made money.



My main premise is that success for a bailout of a publicly traded company would be defined as it reaching or exceeding the average share price in the year before bankruptcy, and that it would be so embarrassing politically if it didn't happen that the president would take extraordinary actions to make sure that it did.

 

[Raven117]

It's cool.

From what I am reading the government did take a loss. There were lots of news stories when the price was going up making it sound like the government actually made money.



My main premise is that success for a bailout of a publicly traded company would be defined as it reaching or exceeding the average share price in the year before bankruptcy, and that it would be so embarrassing politically if it didn't happen that the president would take extraordinary actions to make sure that it did.

That's as good of metric as any, I suppose. Other than the financial industry (I'm talking market makers here, not hedge funds), I'm not sure how much government bailout money is going to be available. But new decade, new way of thinking.

As I said earlier, either (i) make an investment in a company before the bailout (or right after) and hope it saves the company from bankruptcy or (ii) invest after emergence. Maybe the government steps in. Maybe not. After emergence, you will have plenty of available data both filed with the SEC and in Court pleadings to determine whether its a good investment for you.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Eh, took my 21% profit on STEM. Building up my cash.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Eh, took my 21% profit on STEM. Building up my cash.

I had money on the side line, then it got bigger as I dumped BB for a decent 25% gain. I was thinking about waiting.

But took the re-dip on UNM and a Canadian company called Bird Construction.

I still feel like playing the volatile shit with other money I still got on the sidelines, but I am comfortable lately skewing these gains to stocks that pay a 3-5% yield.

I have an investment property going up next year, which I'll probably dump in 3 years. I have a lot of money on the sides and paid into it already. When I sell, I expect back about a net (after all taxes paid) of about $350k which is about 50/50 my money and expected net profits.

I havent thought yet what I'll do with that lump. But I see mostly sinking it into boring shit like banks, utility companies, Rogers Cable and such. No way I'm taking this and rolling the dice on meme stocks like I did a bit this year and getting lucky on BB, Nokia (your tip!), Michaels Stores and weird shit I'd never normally invest in but got caught up in the meme fad. Cant do this crazy shit forever.

 

[Master Of Illusion]

Sold AMC at $57 and transferred that cash out into 1 ETH coin.

 

[CrankyJay™]

I had money on the side line, then it got bigger as I dumped BB for a decent 25% gain. I was thinking about waiting.

But took the re-dip on UNM and a Canadian company called Bird Construction.

I still feel like playing the volatile shit with other money I still got on the sidelines, but I am comfortable lately skewing these gains to stocks that pay a 3-5% yield.

I have an investment property going up next year, which I'll probably dump in 3 years. I have a lot of money on the sides and paid into it already. When I sell, I expect back about a net (after all taxes paid) of about $350k which is about 50/50 my money and expected net profits.

I havent thought yet what I'll do with that lump. But I see mostly sinking it into boring shit like banks, utility companies, Rogers Cable and such. No way I'm taking this and rolling the dice on meme stocks like I did a bit this year and getting lucky on BB, Nokia (your tip!), Michaels Stores and weird shit I'd never normally invest in but got caught up in the meme fad. Cant do this crazy shit forever.

I was seriously at 0% cash and kept adding funds since the March dip .... I didn't like where my strategy was headed so I'm at about 10% cash now. I'm trying to train myself to be more patient to buy on the true dips.

Usually 20% is my minimum to take a profit on something, especially if the movement has been up up up ..... I got caught with my pants down on STEM and had to average down to $26. It was as low as the mid 16s a few weeks ago and is now double.

Anyway, can't go broke taking profits.

 

[DrunkandDrunker]

Social media is such a brilliant invention. Maybe twitter/reddit traffic does indeed determine meme stock price.
In terms of hilarity it's a L for Chanos, although a nice try.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

March alone theres 1,195,984,178 TOTAL shares on Dark Pool trading (OTC), on average there has been 2B shares every month on Dark Pool, This is not total trades, these are TOTAL SHARES.

Add this to our float of about 500M.

Also check when they started having BILLIONS of shares to trade - January - Before that there was only 300M.

Check the details, CITADEL is the heavy player.

Check it yourself - https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/OtcIssueData

 

[12Goblins]

ricardo_sousa11 holding strong? Balls of steel my man.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

ricardo_sousa11 holding strong? Balls of steel my man.

still rockin strong