First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies in trouble doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it. But it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood, to provide cover for their hedge fund friends to get out of their shorts.
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, then what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than they have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
Average Joe in San Francisco has more equity in his house than that fund has in total assets.
This means its GME position is 4.15% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
Besides all that, SWAPS are not used like that. If someone wants to short stock, it is because they want to DRIVE DOWN the price. Therefore at some point, they MUST put those shares (long or short) into the MARKET. It would do them no good to have some sort of SWAP sitting in a drawer collecting dust. That is just nonsense.
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.
P.S. Now that the stock market is closed, I can say that it did EXACTLY what I said it would do earlier in this thread -- chop sideways today and into tomorrow. After the Federal Reserve announcement at 2:00 ET, look out! We could have a wild ride for a few days as the market figures out what to do next.
First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies in trouble doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it. But it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood, to provide cover for their hedge fund friends to get out of their shorts.
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, then what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than they have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
Average Joe in San Francisco has more equity in his house than that fund has in total assets.
This means its GME position is 4.15% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
Besides all that, SWAPS are not used like that. If someone wants to short stock, it is because they want to DRIVE DOWN the price. Therefore at some point, they MUST put those shares (long or short) into the MARKET. It would do them no good to have some sort of SWAP sitting in a drawer collecting dust. That is just nonsense.
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.
First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies in trouble doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it. But it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood, to provide cover for their hedge fund friends to get out of their shorts.
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, then what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than they have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
Average Joe in San Francisco has more equity in his house than that fund has in total assets.
This means its GME position is 4.15% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.
First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies in trouble doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it. But it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood, to provide cover for their hedge fund friends to get out of their shorts.
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, then what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than they have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
Average Joe in San Francisco has more equity in his house than that fund has in total assets.
This means its GME position is 4.5% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.
First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies in trouble doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it. But it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood, to provide cover for their hedge fund friends to get out of their shorts.
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, then what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than they have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
This means its GME position is 4.5% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.
First of all, thank you for actually engaging in a real discussion. You are the ONLY one in this thread, it seems, who is capable of doing that. Props to you (although it shouldn't be that hard -- I guess everyone else here is just a lemming).
Anyway ...
GME talked about the number of shares that were DIRECT REGISTERED to their custodian.
I have not followed this story since early last year. All I can say is that this statement from a CEO smells like market manipulation to me. I have seen plenty of small companies, in trouble, doing all sorts of weird things that other companies never do. It does not necessarily mean anything other than manipulation.
I do remember Patrick Byrne talking about the naked short sellers pushing down Overstock.com. He was probably right, and the media attacked him. So, maybe there is something to it, but it is 50/50 at best, as to whether it means what the touts are claiming it does.
Because according to the media, the shorts all covered GME last year. That statement was repeated a lot last year
Right, because the financial media were conspiring with the hedge fund shorts, along with brokers like Robinhood
Again, per the SEC report there has been no short squeeze yet.
A short squeeze occurs when buyers buy up a stock so much that the short sellers have to also buy to avoid massive losses. There would be no need for that with GME, because the stock has been in a steady downfall most of the time, giving short sellers plenty of time to get out without a squeeze. That is likely what those moves up are about. But the overall direction has been down -- 80%+.
BTW, if hedge funds, mutual funds, and media are all in on the conspiracy, they what makes you think the SEC wouldn't be, too? What makes you think the SEC is telling the truth? Wasn't Rod Rosenstein's wife in charge of it recently?
Regarding XRT, here is the actual SEC report:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf
It is 40 pages, and I don't have time to read through it and figure out what they are talking about. I will say that XRT is a fund that mirrors the S&P Retail Index, and shorting a massive amount of GME stock would be a ridiculous thing to do for multiple reasons.
Is the SEC talking about the buying/selling of XRT shares itself, or claiming that XRT is secretly shorting stocks to boost their results? That wouldn't even make sense, since their mandate is to DUPLICATE (not outperform) the index.
The story being told by these stock touts doesn't make any sense, even if it could technically happen. Why would an index fund do secret trades to boost its returns or help out its buddies, when it is set up ONLY to mirror an index?
MEME has ZERO ASSETS. XRT and IWM are both index funds. The Motley Fool ... well I wouldn't put anything past them, other than that have built a huge company and would be very stupid of them to risk it via money laundering and market manipulation.
If you can point to something SPECIFIC in those 40 pages, I will have a look. But it sounds like some online touts are selling tulip bulbs. Even if these money managers wanted to do it, there is no mechanism for it to happen.
MEME has assets.
OK, I had to do some looking, but I finally found a source that says MEME has assets:
It owns GME, but only 4.15% of its fund is GME (long position, not short). It only has $1.7 million in assets, total. Do you realize how SMALL that is?
This means its GME position is 4.5% of that, or about $70,000. So, they own around 700 shares of GME. Maybe those reported numbers are a bit old, so let's say around 1,000 shares, which would make sense.
Big whoop! That is NOTHING.
GME traded 3.56 million shares today. What does MEME's position prove? They don't even have the assets to short any significant amount of GME if they wanted to. And if they did, it would totally expose them as frauds. If they made a bunch of money, their fund would outperform what it is supposed to do, and if they lost, they would be headed to prison for lying and manipulating.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Amazon had plenty of REVENUE, as does Tesla. They didn't have PROFITS, but they had revenue.
DWAC has ZERO REVENUE. Like I said, sell one glass of lemonade at a lemonade stand, and an 8-year old child has more REVENUE than DWAC.
A lot of biotech companies are like that, too. I just saved my mother from investing in a biotech "cancer drug" company because I showed her it has NO REVENUES.
This is a BIG problem for DWAC. Maybe it will change, but investing in this NOW is stupidity.
The SWAPS are not with the ETF. They are with the Short Hedge Funds and the Family Offices themselves versus Prime brokers.
OK, if that is true, then there is no need to involve ETF's at all. And the LAST ETF's they would want to involve would be index ones. Those guys have NO ability to maneuver the way you are claiming. They just cannot do it, even if they wanted to. And if they did, they would be found out IMMEDIATELY.
Regarding family offices, those are just investment advisors. They do NOT place trades. They go THROUGH prime brokers, just like the hedge funds do.
Hedge funds, family offices, and similar businesses MUST USE PRIME BROKERS to place their trades. While there are likely a lot of shady prime brokers, you should be asking yourself: FOR WHAT?
What advantage does the prime broker have?
If you are talking manipulation at a massive level, I will tell you a MUCH easier way of doing it.
Have the Federal Reserve create money, and run the trades through FOREIGN brokers. That's what the perps did on 9/11. Because the trades were foreign (German, to be specific), the "investigators" claimed they couldn't find out anything.
Anyway ...
Thanks for actually responding to my comments. You are the ONLY one here who did so.
I think the touts in GME are pulling a con game on you guys.
(1) Look at the GME financials. They are burning up cash at a rate that will put them into bankruptcy within the year. Maybe someone will bail them out. Someone already did (maybe a short seller). But the BUSINESS itself is LOSING money. If that does not change, look out below -- unless a big fish steps in (again).
(2) The manipulation through ETF's is NOT going to happen the way the touts are claiming. INDEX funds are NOT going to be playing that game, just to save a few hedge funds (who, by the way, were RIGHT about the financial prospects of the company).
(3) Family offices do NOT place trades directly with the exchanges. There MUST be a broker that does that, and prime brokers are used for the big guys (small family offices might just use a regular retail broker).
Finally, look at the chart:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/GME/interactive-chart
It might not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me that GME is a pump and dump, and nothing more. The company has been losing revenue, and is now losing money.
The shorts were right.
But if you are long, good luck.