I predict that the S&P 500 will be well under 5,000 by September 30th

Sammy Jankis said:
trading was suspended on a stock where large institutional positions were losing.

this was not a disinterested action for the health of the markets.

the GameStop stoppage was evidence of clear bias and insider trading on the markets as a whole.
Click to expand...
Trading was not suspended on the market, but buying was suspended by Robinhood(selling was still available). Robinhood was no longer being paid to sell GameStop stock, and in fact was being charged money to sell it. This meant that Robinhood was losing money, and fast.

There were some large institutions on the other side of the deals, but there were also many very rich individuals. Whoever they were, they were no longer willing to be on the other side of the deal.

Insider trading is a bit of a stretch. The "smart money" lost a lot of money, because they did not understand GameStop. That is the opposite of insider trading.

There is a problem that no one thinks about. Even if you do work out a way to make huge amounts of money, the rest of the world does not need to continue to provide you that way. With card counting, the casino can just ask you to leave. They do not need to allow you to continue gambling if they are losing. If you start making huge amounts of money at online poker, that will drive other online poker players away, and the online poker company can drop your limits down to a few pennies. You will still win at online poker, just win less than a dollar an hour.

The "smart money" ran into the same problem. They could not find anyone willing to take the other side of deals with them. The reason Robinhood exists is to funnel "dumb money" into the market to be the other side of deals. It is free, because everyone is just happy just to have "dumb money" in the market. When the "dumb money" turned out to be smart once, the "smart money" chose to walk away from the table.
 
Walt said:
Trading was not suspended on the market, but buying was suspended by Robinhood(selling was still available). Robinhood was no longer being paid to sell GameStop stock, and in fact was being charged money to sell it. This meant that Robinhood was losing money, and fast.

There were some large institutions on the other side of the deals, but there were also many very rich individuals. Whoever they were, they were no longer willing to be on the other side of the deal.

Insider trading is a bit of a stretch. The "smart money" lost a lot of money, because they did not understand GameStop. That is the opposite of insider trading.

There is a problem that no one thinks about. Even if you do work out a way to make huge amounts of money, the rest of the world does not need to continue to provide you that way. With card counting, the casino can just ask you to leave. They do not need to allow you to continue gambling if they are losing. If you start making huge amounts of money at online poker, that will drive other online poker players away, and the online poker company can drop your limits down to a few pennies. You will still win at online poker, just win less than a dollar an hour.

The "smart money" ran into the same problem. They could not find anyone willing to take the other side of deals with them. The reason Robinhood exists is to funnel "dumb money" into the market to be the other side of deals. It is free, because everyone is just happy just to have "dumb money" in the market. When the "dumb money" turned out to be smart once, the "smart money" chose to walk away from the table.
Click to expand...
trading was suspended on the stock because some insiders didn't like it.

this is marke interference and insider corruption, you lying asshound.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
trading was suspended on the stock because some insiders didn't like it.

this is marke interference and insider corruption, you lying asshound.
Click to expand...
Suspending trading, insider, etc. have specific meanings. You are using the terms wrong.

There is something insidious going on here, but you seem to have trouble finding it.

"Smart money" paid the clearing houses to find "dumb money" to be the counter party on deals. Robinhood was paid money by the clearing houses to deliver "dumb money" to be counter parties to "smart money." The "dumb money" investors were not Robinhood's customers, they were Robinhood's product. They were sold to the "smart money."

Robinhood did many things to get this product. They made their supposed service free. They created a gambling style interface(with simulated confetti exploding on trades) that only worked well on cell phones. It was all calculated to get unsophisticated investors to take risky investments.

When "dumb money" actually turned out to be smart on one deal, "smart money" did the smart thing and walked away from the table. That left Robinhood losing money on selling (and other ways of longing) GameStop, so they stopped doing that.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
trading was suspended on the stock because some insiders didn't like it.

this is marke interference and insider corruption, you lying asshound.
Click to expand...
The Harlem Globetrotters are going to play the Washington Generals. I bet on the Globetrotters, and you can have the Generals. If you take that bet, you will lose. Then I point out that tomorrow they are playing again... And the day after that... And so on. I try to convince you to keep betting on the Generals.

Note of information, the Globetrotters have played over 20,000 "games" against the Generals. They are mostly not real games, but more entertainment with hijinks. One time, the Generals accidentally won, but that is one time out of over 20,000. It would be fair to say that the Generals will never win.

What is your play in this situation? Simple, walk away from the bet. You are losing money on this, so do not do it. I would whine that it is no fair that you refuse to give me your money, but it is your right.
 
Walt said:
The Harlem Globetrotters are going to play the Washington Generals. I bet on the Globetrotters, and you can have the Generals. If you take that bet, you will lose. Then I point out that tomorrow they are playing again... And the day after that... And so on. I try to convince you to keep betting on the Generals.

Note of information, the Globetrotters have played over 20,000 "games" against the Generals. They are mostly not real games, but more entertainment with hijinks. One time, the Generals accidentally won, but that is one time out of over 20,000. It would be fair to say that the Generals will never win.

What is your play in this situation? Simple, walk away from the bet. You are losing money on this, so do not do it. I would whine that it is no fair that you refuse to give me your money, but it is your right.
Click to expand...
this his no relationship to the GameStop situation.
 
this is big finance not liking it when investors disobey their sell advice, because they have put options on the stock.

corrupt as fuck.

the whole system is corrupt.
 

The GameStop Phenomenon and Retail Investors' Power // The Roundup

Introduction to the GameStop Saga Something fairly unexpected happened on Wall Street in January 2021, it changed the conventional balance that had been
jesuitroundup.org jesuitroundup.org

But the GameStop saga wasn’t just about stock prices. At its core, it was a battle over power and influence. It became a symbol of defiance, a moment when ordinary people-armed with determination, creativity, and the tools of modern technology-challenged the traditional dominance of Wall Street elites. To many, this was overdue payback that showcased the inequalities of a financial system that sometimes appeared slanted toward institutional investors at the expense of the common trader.

Beyond the immediate financial consequences, the GameStop saga provoked serious and fundamental questions about equity and transparency in the stock market. It underlined the increasing integration of technology in modern investing. The event also sparked intense debates about the responsibilities of trading platforms, the ethics and effectiveness of short selling, and the need for regulatory reform to adapt to this new era of investing.

The GameStop phenomenon is not a single event, it is rather a tipping point that has forced hedge funds, financial institutions, regulators, and the regular investor to reassess how markets work in a world where social media and technology make individuals more powerful than ever.
 
Walt said:
In the case GameStop, there was a failure to find counter parties, which is what I would expect to find if I tried to bet on the Globetrotters.
Click to expand...
that's bullshit.

the big banks had put options on these for their own profit and then did not like the free market when they were wrong.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
what's your opinion on "mark to model" stock pricing?
Click to expand...
It has been massively misused, but it is sometimes a necessity when there is no market to mark equities to, or the market is very illiquid. The problem often is the people creating the model also thought that the equity was worth buying, so at best it just reinforces the prejudices that the people already have. That is why it is important to have different models being used for the marking. Even that does not work, because the models are all based on the same assumption.

There is no perfect solution. There are a lot of very smart people working very hard to come up with a better solution... But there are also a lot of very smart people working very hard to try to defeat that solution. The more they can maximize your collateral's value, the bigger the loan they can get, and the more money they will make. If they are wrong, and lose money, they can only lose all their money. Beyond that, you cannot get blood from a stone.

Well technically a little different, risk analysis is basically the same concept of mark to model. They are trying to find the risk of different future markets that no one knows yet, so models are used. The markets will give certain future risks, but not how they correlations.
 
Walt said:
It has been massively misused, but it is sometimes a necessity when there is no market to mark equities to, or the market is very illiquid. The problem often is the people creating the model also thought that the equity was worth buying, so at best it just reinforces the prejudices that the people already have. That is why it is important to have different models being used for the marking. Even that does not work, because the models are all based on the same assumption.

There is no perfect solution. There are a lot of very smart people working very hard to come up with a better solution... But there are also a lot of very smart people working very hard to try to defeat that solution. The more they can maximize your collateral's value, the bigger the loan they can get, and the more money they will make. If they are wrong, and lose money, they can only lose all their money. Beyond that, you cannot get blood from a stone.

Well technically a little different, risk analysis is basically the same concept of mark to model. They are trying to find the risk of different future markets that no one knows yet, so models are used. The markets will give certain future risks, but not how they correlations.
Click to expand...
no it fucking isn;t a necessity.

neither is pausing trades when rich people are losing.

you don't believe in free markets.

you believe in fascism.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
so you never heard of 'Mark to model'?
Click to expand...
I said that mark to model is necessary if there is no liquid market to mark it to. You responded, "no it fucking isn;t a necessity." So I asked how you would mark things that did not have a liquid market? Your response is whether I heard of a technique called "mark to model?" Yes, I have, and I said it is a necessity in such cases. You claim it is not, and therefore are claiming to have another solution. What is your solution?

Sammy Jankis said:
are you for it?
Click to expand...
Once again, massively misused, and even when not misused, very easy to get wrong. Having said that, often necessary, so the important thing is to get the model as good as possible, and more importantly use as many diverse models as possible.

Imagine you are a developer, who wants to build a thousand new houses just outside of town, where no suburban houses had been built before. How much of a loan can you get? There is no market for these homes to mark their value to yet, because they have not been built. What the bank must do is make a model based on other markets for homes outside similar towns, and then mark the value of your future homes to that. They will then give you a loan based on the model, not the nonexistent market.
 
Walt said:
I said that mark to model is necessary if there is no liquid market to mark it to. You responded, "no it fucking isn;t a necessity." So I asked how you would mark things that did not have a liquid market? Your response is whether I heard of a technique called "mark to model?" Yes, I have, and I said it is a necessity in such cases. You claim it is not, and therefore are claiming to have another solution. What is your solution?


Once again, massively misused, and even when not misused, very easy to get wrong. Having said that, often necessary, so the important thing is to get the model as good as possible, and more importantly use as many diverse models as possible.

Imagine you are a developer, who wants to build a thousand new houses just outside of town, where no suburban houses had been built before. How much of a loan can you get? There is no market for these homes to mark their value to yet, because they have not been built. What the bank must do is make a model based on other markets for homes outside similar towns, and then mark the value of your future homes to that. They will then give you a loan based on the model, not the nonexistent market.
Click to expand...
so you remembered then?

and its never necessary fucking idiot.

the big boys lost and they did not want to pay up, so they suspended trades and cheated.

youre not free market.

you're a totalitarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top