Just note that today TWTR is trading at new 52 week LOWS. It is more than 50% off of it's 52 week high. THAT my frens is a crash! DWAC has been forming a base and is ready to take off like a rocket ship. FREEDOM of SPEECH will win. NCSWIC!!!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
Supply/Demand does not drive market prices for many stocks. While TWTR going down may be a S/D thing, the price of DWAC is not. It is being short sold to suppress the price. My advice, as a year long GME holder, the only reason to pay attention to the price of stocks is to buy more in the dips. Do your best to get the best price when trading your worthless Federal Reserve Notes for valuable stocks in a real company (like DWAC, GME).
Other than watching for the dips, the price is really meaningless until we take back our market from the PTB and end their reign of fuckery. Also, pretty much the worst idea in the world is going back the other way, i.e. trading valuable stock in a company for worthless Federal Reserve Notes, no matter how many they offer you.
(Note: There is nothing 'challenging' about this question - I am genuinely seeking an explanation from someone who seems to be knowledgeable about stocks, GME, MegaCorp, etc. Please forgive me if I am asking a 'beginner' question, as I have only followed the GME situation tangentially. I have read the 'MegaCorp Part 1' article, which was very interesting.)
I have one nagging question about the GME short-squeeze scenario, perhaps you could help me understand...
I completely understand the (dramatically) rising prices in the squeeze feedback loop, but the super-high price is only useful once money changes hands.
What's to stop MegaCorp from 'sacrificing' a subsidiary or two to absolve themselves of the liability? (i.e., transfer the short positions to a small company, and then declare it insolvent?)
In a 'normal' world, I imagine the answer has to do with the 'permanence of the underlying stocks' that were borrowed for the short, but this is not a normal world. As I understand it, there were (in most cases) no stocks borrowed.
So... What is the 'collateral'? What is the 'guarantee' that the 'to the moon' prices will ever actually be paid out?
This is a very important point. It is only one of the problems with the actual fulfillment of a "short squeeze."
Legally speaking, there is likely a chain of liability. Corporations are designed to hide behind. They allow people to do all manner of immoral and illegal shit through their company, and then absolve themselves from personal responsibility by blaming the company itself for the actions; however, if you own enough stock in a company, there is a legal responsibility. Megacorp shows that there is a single owner for everything (although it doesn't yet name the people who own that single entity), and that that single owner has more than enough stock in the culprits doing the short selling to be legally responsible for its actions.
Having said that, that doesn't mean that it would play out that way in court. Megacorp shows the ownership, and to some extent the laws (more on that is coming in future parts), but it doesn't really make a case that will win in court (though it could be a valuable piece of evidence in such a case). A future part is designed to be a court case, not for MOASS specifically, but for the real problem (The Fed/BIS/All of Banking).
There were many stocks borrowed that were not actual stocks (as in, stocks offered for sale to the public by the company), but legally speaking these phantom stocks are still owed back by the borrower. They must be paid for when the short sale is due, even though they don't exist. Again, that's the law, that's not necessarily what happens. They have been, by fuckery, extending that time for repayment far past their due date, by short selling more phantom stocks to replace the ones that were due.
There is no guarantee. This could go on forever. They could renege on their obligations. They could do as you said, and find a way to absolve themselves of ownership and patsy away a few of their corps. But legally speaking, I don't think they can do that. Practically speaking I don't think they can either, because if they could, they already would have.
On the other hand, they may be waiting to play that card because there might be advantages to delaying the inevitable. Remember, they are the designers of The Great Reset. They want the economy to be completely destroyed. They may use MOASS for that purpose. If there is a MOASS, it could be the end of everything.
What is certain is, GME is putting a lot of pressure into the system, and it is teaching people about reality. The pressure is going to cause an explosion at some point, the question is, will we be prepared when it does?
Teaching people what the real problem is, along with the necessary preparations (solutions) is what the next couple parts of my report will show. The solution is the same no matter how the GME situation resolves.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Everything you say makes logical sense (and is 'in line' with the logic of my initial question). When you realize that 'the law might not be followed (by them)', the game theory sometimes gets complicated...
If I understand correctly, it's not currently possible to know which eventual resolution will play out (MOASS with payouts, abdication of liability, lawsuits, etc), and each has a different benefit to offer humanity (high ROI, awakening to market fraud, revelation/destruction of MegaCorp, etc).
So... Not all resolution paths will be taken, and therefore not all benefits will come to fruition -- but at least one substantial benefit to mankind should be realized.
Correct?
One way or another, GME and its resolution will almost certainly be a part of what is to come. I don't think it is coincidence that the company that is causing all this market exposure is called Game Stop.