TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 71

Thread: GameStop and criminal behaviour

  1. #26
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    The comparison to 2008 would be something like the education debt bubble.
    Redditors didn't do anything to a single hudgefund that hedgefunds did to everyone wiped out by the 2008 shake up, which anyway was about the housing bubble; whereas in this case there is no deeper socio-economic dynamic that this represents. It was practically pure stochastic volatility. A price artificially spiked for a few hours and then collapsed again. The analogy doesn't really work.
    I was reading that it will lead to regulations that make it harder for random mass movements to arbitrarily spike the volatility of a market, but I don't expect redditors have enough of an attention span to have this happen that often anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakoob View Post
    I read bunch of posts and saw tons of memes, and you are the aboslultely first person to bring up saving GameStop and gaming culture. This is absolutely not about saving Gamestop or gaming from what I undersatnd; it really could have been any stock (and it is, like AMC as well).

    This has one very simple goal: fuck over the hedge fun. There is no nuance. it really is that simple.

    And no "poor man" is losing their life savings here. People invested their puny $600 stimulus checks that are now worth $60,000. Even once these goes bust, they're not gonna be homeless. They know what they're getting into.
    I basically agree with both of your points, so I can clarify what I was saying. One, over $10+ trillion is traded in average volume every single day. Just targeting one AMC at random, throwing a dart at a single drop in the ocean, is beyond meaningless if that's what all of this was really all about. I mentioned gaming because IMO that's what this should be about. Financial forces aren't these abstract voodoo forces that have to be exorcized. They're people trying to make a thing, and wanting to buy a thing, and all of the social, economic, political, and cultural elements that go into that. I said "if they cared about gaming" to make the point that of course they don't care about gaming. They have a religious world view about a heaven that doesn't exist and pointless rituals that don't get them any closer to it. It would have been better, my point was, if they had actually cared about the industry they were rummaging in. Because that actually is the little slice of heaven we can hope to achieve on earth within our feeble powers. We just have this and nothing deeper.

    As for people not losing their life savings, I was meaning to say it like that and if I exaggerated it that was my mistake. I meant to word the point more like people blowing their summer savings (not their whole life savings), and for what? I don't think it changes the point all that much. I recognized that they got off on using their money for this (I did say it's like a drug hit), but my point there is that this isn't a healthy addiction, even if they say they're getting something for their money. And if you took away the endorphin hit, it's just burning money with no value created for it; no games, no widgets, no utility, no salve for the soul, no nothin'. Just resentment signaling, getting off on cutting themselves so everyone can see how eager they are to bleed for this and watch the big man fall (wank, wank, wank...). They could spend their summer savings every year and artificially spike every market for a few hours if they put their minds to it, and would they get off on it the 10,000th time as much as this time? But there's nothing illegal about it (for now), and people are allowed to lose money to make others lose more.

    And my point then was, if they had cared about heaven on earth, like I think people should, that money would have been better spent buying games and supporting devs than some quasi-religious ritual where that money just disappears into some derivative benefiting some inscrutably random allotment of people and literally nothing else of cosmic benefit, and an AMC had to sell partial ownership to continue what it's always done along the way.
    Last edited by demagogue; 30th Jan 2021 at 07:58.

  2. #27
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    People don't need to lose money here.

    The point is this:
    Suppose fund X has sold 1000 call-options for a target-price of $50, on March 1st. That means someone else (let's call them B) has the right to buy a 1000 shares from X, for $50, on March 1st. If the price on March 1st turns out to be higher, say $200, B will certainly buy those 1000 shares. B pays $50 and sells immediately for $200. But X has to have those shares, otherwise it can't sell them, and can't meet its obligation.

    It's starting to look like the price will be over $50. So X better starts making sure it has those 1000 stocks. It doesn't yet. X went "naked", meaning it had not bought/owned any stock to cover its options. So now they have to make sure they do have them. Before March 1st. The only way to get them, is buying them on the stockmarket. Driving the price up. Making the situation worse for them.

    So all the redditors have to do is: buy stock for less then the expected price on March 1st. And keep them. Keep them as long as possible. And start selling just before March 1st. Or just after, as long as they sell for more then they bought for. In a perfect scenario, all reditors put their shares up for sale one hour before closing on Feb 28th. The hedgefunds *have* to buy them then. They *have* to have those shares to cover their arses.

    So suppose X has enough shares on March 1st. Stockprice is $200. B buys all their 1000 shares from X. To make a profit from this deal, B will slowly start selling their shares. Driving the price down. No redditor has stock anymore (we hope). Hardly anyone will be buying after March 1st. So the price is expected to drop after March 1st. How much? Nobody knows. But if B can sell a substantial amount of their stock for more than $50, they make a profit.

    The tricky part is what happens in the last hours (or days) before March 1st. But the hedgefunds don't only need to buy all available stock on the market, they actually need to have 140% of all existing stock! (Catbarf gave that number 140%, I don't know if it is accurate). So all redditors will have a chance to sell their stock for a high price just before March 1st. The risk on paper for the redditors is not that big. Not everyone is gonna lose their money. As long as they don't start selling en mass long before March 1st (not selling because of this, is called "diamond hands").

    The hedgefunds made a few mistakes. They sold more call-options than there are stock. They went naked. But what triggered this is the fact that the amount of outstanding call-options is public. I don't know if this happened in this case, but hedgefunds do something extra when they go short. They announce it to the world. They mention it in interviews on TV. They make sure that everyone hears: "Wallstreet thinks GameStop will go broke soon". That causes people to be careful investing in GameStop. And that drives the price down. And that helps guaranteeing that the hedgefund doesn't need to own and sell the stock for those options. That's pure market-manipulation. And it happens all the time. But the big guys get away with it every time. But not this time.


    I'm just an amateur here. I'm only trying to explain what I've heard and read. I'm sure I am incorrect and incomplete in some of my statements. If any of you know better than me, please correct me in what I wrote. TIA.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 30th Jan 2021 at 08:11.

  3. #28
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I think it's optimistic to think that redditors would be that strategic about it, but for my part at least my point isn't really do to with whether they make or lose money. I thought it was an unhealthy addiction (resentment signalling) completely aside from that. Of course it's better all around if people don't lose money for this, so at least it does the least harm.

    But you know, the app doing this tried to contain the bleeding by preventing people from loss trading and that just made them even more enraged at "the system".
    If people aren't allowed to take others down without harming themselves, you can see how preventing self-harm is a problem.
    And you can't win against a religious worldview like that.

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by mopgoblin View Post
    2) neoliberal capitalism
    You can't force the capitalism being "not neoliberal" nor "financial"

    When you choose capitalism you choose ALL its forms 'cause they're like neutrinos.

  5. #30
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    But it's disingenuous to suggest that therefore the Democratic agenda is somehow ultra-capitalist and ultra-conservative and in the extreme right of the political spectrum. At least a lot of Democrats, even a lot of the more conservative ones like Biden, recognise the need for some change and are open to it instead of actively working against it.
    And I disagree. Of course the Republicans are 10x worse than the Democrats. And indeed the Democrats have a whole range of different opinions in them. But that doesn't make them less capitalists.

    The 2008 crash happened partially because Bill Clinton had relaxed and removed a lot of regulations for Wall Street. Obama didn't really do anything to put back those restrictions. Hillary Clinton had made sure that all bankers understood that she would not do anything against their interests. We haven't seen yet what Biden will do. But my bet is: he will put some new restrictions in place to limit the power of small investors. And he will do fuck-all to limit the big guys. Regarding the financial market, the Democrats are just as much pro free and unrestricted market as the Republicans. Or very close.

    From a European perspective, both parties have a full-blown capitalistic ideology. The fact that the Republicans, on top of that, are also fascists, doesn't diminish the fact that the Democrats are 110% capitalists.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    First, hedge funds have destroyed countless lives by playing with numbers, and will continue to do so. Taking them down, for whatever reason, is in the public good.
    Second, a major reason for people to do this is to make money, not lose it. The billions that the hedge funds are losing are being redistributed to all the little people who bought the stocks, once they sell the stocks at the end of February.
    The main risk seems to be that governments step in and interfere to save their billionaire buddies at the expense of the many - which is sadly a common occurrence in most corrupt governments.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    The hedgefunds made a few mistakes. They sold more call-options than there are stock. They went naked. But what triggered this is the fact that the amount of outstanding call-options is public. I don't know if this happened in this case, but hedgefunds do something extra when they go short. They announce it to the world. They mention it in interviews on TV. They make sure that everyone hears: "Wallstreet thinks GameStop will go broke soon". That causes people to be careful investing in GameStop. And that drives the price down. And that helps guaranteeing that the hedgefund doesn't need to own and sell the stock for those options. That's pure market-manipulation. And it happens all the time. But the big guys get away with it every time. But not this time.
    Yes, it's a market distortion with an integrated damage-control system, but I can't see why hedgefunds managers can't retaliate over the "wannabes" (in several ways).
    And I don't think the hedgefunds are - in reality - separated from others funds.....just because the law.

    The law can't create money when money get lost/burned 'cause of shady business practices.

  8. #33
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    But you know, the app doing this tried to contain the bleeding by preventing people from loss trading and that just made them even more enraged at "the system".
    If people aren't allowed to take others down without harming themselves, you can see how preventing self-harm is a problem.
    And you can't win against a religious worldview like that.
    That's not what happened here.
    The hedgefunds need to own shares soon. To cover their position. It is in their best interests if everybody else is selling, and they (the hedgefunds) are the only ones buying. Everybody understand thats. What Robin Hood did had nothing to do with protecting their small investors. They did it 100% only to help the big guys. That's not a religious worldview from the redditors. They understand what RH did. They might be retards and autists. But they are not stupid.

    You seem to think that the redditors do this only to fuck the hedgefunds, even though they lose all their money themselves. It's not. The redditors can make money from this. What the small guys are doing, manipulating the market, is exactly what the hedgefunds have been doing for decades. But now the hedgefunds fall victim to their own game. And suddenly these "let the market decide everything"-whimps start crying "dear government, please put in regulations to protect us. and if we go belly up, because of our greedy and stupid strategies, please bail us out".

  9. #34
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    But now the hedgefunds fall victim to their own game. And suddenly these "let the market decide everything"-whimps start crying "dear government, please put in regulations to protect us. and if we go belly up, because of our greedy and stupid strategies, please bail us out".
    What about "You all little fuckers want to play the big game with us? Dear governement, remove ALL the protections for the little savers and let's play all together".

    It's just "law", and not the physics type written in nature language

  10. #35
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Supposedly it is illegal to lie about your position in the market. You're not obliged to tell the world how many shares and options you have. But if you open your mouth, you can't lie.

    The hedgefunds would like everything to return to normal, stockprice of GME goes down again, etc. They want this thing to be over with. So what they did Thursday and Friday is: they let CNBC repeatedly tell their audience "Melvin Capital has bought enough shares now to cover their position". If that is true, the whole short-squeeze is over. Melvin isn't required to buy more stock.

    But is that true? Journalists asked Melvin directly: "is it true that you have covered your position now"? Melvin doesn't answer. They can't answer themselves, because if they are lying, they get into trouble. So they let others lie for them. But it's too obvious. Nobody believes them.


    I should have thought about this earlier: of course there is a wiki-page explaining all this.

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Is it illegal? Oh, just buy a new law (buying some parliamentary representation) or directly some judges or if you can't just buy the minimum sentence thanks to high level lawyers
    I don't think these people really care about legality. It's just a decoration for them, a make-up.

  12. #37
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    They (hedgefunds) really don't care.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSt...on_hedge_funds
    "On January 26, 2021, it was reported that short sellers lost a total of $6 billion due to the squeeze".
    Six billion? Someone will care.

    If they cared about games, I think the healthier model is supporting alternative funding sources for innovative games and outlets.
    This is not about GME, or gaming, of course.
    But short-selling is a shitty business.
    Also because the big players don't just do financial transactions. They do more. They try to manipulate the market to bring the stockprice further down. As I wrote above: just announcing that a big player is going short, will hurt the stockprice. That hurts that company. And it hurts everyone who had already invested in that company. Officially it's illegal. But it happens.

    What's it like for a company who's stock goes down? Not good.
    You can't attract new capital as easily. You can't reward your executives (and other employees) with stock-options. Lots of companies have "stock-buy plans" for their employees. You can buy 10% of your monthly salary worth of stock. And you get a 10% or so discount. If the stockprice sinks, it has an impact on moral. It's harder to attract new employees. You business-partners might trust you less. Or might require more financial safe-guards when doing transactions. You are more vulnerable to hostile takeovers. There are lots of reason why a high or an increasing stock-price helps companies. When hedgefunds go short, and try to drive stockprice down, it really impacts the company.


    Edit: Mods, can we change the title of this thread? Into "Hedgefunds and criminal behaviour"? Or more precise: "Gamestop Short Squeeze" or something.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 30th Jan 2021 at 09:25.

  13. #38
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Nah, leave the title. You know what it's about.

    The name Robinhood is looking to be the irony that will be them in the ass. Who would trust them in the future? Not me.

  14. #39
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    The title implies that GameStop are engaging in criminal behaviour, or at the very least implies that the Redditors are - neither of which are true. So it's a pretty terrible title.

  15. #40
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    It's deliberately ambiguous but yeah if you can't cope with that change it I guess.

  16. #41
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    You don't understand what price is.
    Yeah, whatever you say, chief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis
    I got zero symphatie for hedgefunds. These are not pensionfunds. These are not funds for the litle man to invest his savings.
    Oh? You don't think that investors in hedgefunds might be other entities that DO affect the "little man" if it goes tits up?

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    It happened with VW in 2008, so... yes? The hedge funds lost $30 billion, and that was with much less risky investment than the sheer absurdity of shorting 140% of available stock.
    During a financial crisis? Exactly the same then, of courses. And they'd never learn to be more cautious. Noooooo.

    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    I bet it was more like Citadel calling up Robinhood and saying "put a stop to this". Either way its still shitty, and really gives an insight about the crapness of capitalism.
    Word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless Voice View Post
    First, hedge funds have destroyed countless lives by playing with numbers, and will continue to do so. Taking them down, for whatever reason, is in the public good.
    It'll all be temporary. Hyrdas and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    And I don't think the hedgefunds are - in reality - separated from others funds.....just because the law.
    And circumstance.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    And I disagree. Of course the Republicans are 10x worse than the Democrats. And indeed the Democrats have a whole range of different opinions in them. But that doesn't make them less capitalists.

    The 2008 crash happened partially because Bill Clinton had relaxed and removed a lot of regulations for Wall Street. Obama didn't really do anything to put back those restrictions. Hillary Clinton had made sure that all bankers understood that she would not do anything against their interests. We haven't seen yet what Biden will do. But my bet is: he will put some new restrictions in place to limit the power of small investors. And he will do fuck-all to limit the big guys. Regarding the financial market, the Democrats are just as much pro free and unrestricted market as the Republicans. Or very close.

    From a European perspective, both parties have a full-blown capitalistic ideology. The fact that the Republicans, on top of that, are also fascists, doesn't diminish the fact that the Democrats are 110% capitalists.
    Of course Democrats are capitalists. Even AOC and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are. However, not all capitalists are the same and the diversity does matter. Democrats support raising the minimum wage. Is that something "110% capitalists" would do? Biden killed the Keystone pipeline. Is that something an "ultra-capitalist" would do? Democrats want to keep Social Security and Medicare, Republicans want to reduce it and privatize it, respectively (AKA the whole raison d'etre of Paul Ryan). Student debt forgiveness is only something Democrats talk about. And so on.

    Sure, you can point to individual acts, like Obama bailing out banks and the car industry (though it can be argued it was a necessity at this point) or Clinton not vetoing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (though it had already been hollowed out by that point and it was repealed by a Congress where Republicans held the majority in both houses). Nobody can deny the Democrats have a mixed record on a wide variety of issues, including the environment and other causes that are for some reason considered to be "leftist". But for being 110% ultra-capitalists, they seem to hold a lot of positions that go against that.

    As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues. And yes, here too their record is mixed (Defense of Marriage Act) and they have been often dragging their feet, but it's not like you can say with a straight face that there is no great difference between them and the Republicans. It's more like, if not day and night exactly, then at least a very overcast day and night.

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    During a financial crisis? Exactly the same then, of courses. And they'd never learn to be more cautious. Noooooo.
    Well if the facts that you haven't seemed to research for yourself seem implausible to you, I guess they must be wrong.

    Is S3 just totally wrong about ~113% of shares being shorted as of Friday or what? Short sellers reporting $19 billion in losses thus far isn't real?
    Last edited by catbarf; 31st Jan 2021 at 00:21.

  19. #44
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Of course Democrats are capitalists.

    As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues.
    It's a capitalist country, how is this even a surprise?

    What surprises me is how anyone can be against those things you list, but then I'm a lefty loon it seems. I just cannot get my head around the right wing/Tories/Republicans.

    And being a capitalist isn't a bad thing. There's just good and bad ways to go about it, as with most things.

  20. #45
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Of course Democrats are capitalists. However, not all capitalists are the same and the diversity does matter. Democrats support raising the minimum wage.
    Well, our whole discussion seems to be around "what is enough to not be called a capitalist or a conservative". I threw the word "ultra" in, to make sure I think the Democrats are not even close to the middle or even the left. If you compare their actions to European progressive parties. Or if you compare their politics to politics through the last 100 years.

    You are correct that some Democrats have nice and friendly ideas about how some parts of society should be. But when you look at what they've done over the last 45 years, there is very little progressive/left/socialist/friendly stuff. (In my own head Nixon is always the border between "post-war" and "modern" times. Not sure if that makes sense). Even Bill Clinton and Obama have done very little to steer the US in the right direction, certainly regarding economy and finance. Yes, on a macro-level (US debt, stockmarket, economic growth, etc) they were a lot better than the Republicans. But what did the US lower-class and lower middle-class really benefit from it? Wages for the common man haven't gone up since the seventies. Education took a nose-dive. Health-care is still a mess.

    Sure, you can point to individual acts, like Obama bailing out banks and the car industry or Clinton not vetoing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act
    I don't know much about all the details of US politics over the last 45 years. I'm not an American, after all. But from what I remember, what I know, and looking at the current state of the US, I don't see how the Democrats did much to oppose capitalism. Yes, they might oppose that pipeline, they might support higher minimum wages. But on a macro level, they support an (relatively) unregulated market, they support US bullying around in the world for economic gain, they support globalization, they support Wallstreet, etc.

    As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues. And yes, here too their record is mixed (Defense of Marriage Act) and they have been often dragging their feet, but it's not like you can say with a straight face that there is no great difference between them and the Republicans. It's more like, if not day and night exactly, then at least a very overcast day and night.
    I never said there is no difference. Here in this thread I called the Democrats capitalist and conservatives. But I called the Republicans fascists. (I used to hesitate to call the Republicans fascists. But after the last 4 years, that hesitation has gone). My point is just: even though the Democrats are much better, friendlier, humane and honest than Republicans, they are still capitalists and conservatives at heart.

    I briefly want to point at the fact that religion still plays a big role in the US. And all politicians make sure to announce they are god-fearing Christians (or Jewish, or Muslims). It is one of the reasons I consider the US (and the Democrats too) a religious country. In Europe, even Ireland and Italy are moving away from religion. (Although Poland seems to be moving towards religion. But they were always a very conservative country).

    My own country is far from perfect either. We have partially privatized health-care in the 90s. We have privatized our energy-system in the 90s. That's now a big problem, because politics don't have control over it anymore. And our energy-system is slowly bought by foreign companies. We need to transition to green energy, but trying to convince for-profit companies to do so, only works when you give them lots of free money (subsidies). Over the last 20 years, people have voted for our biggest capitalist party and our biggest religious party (conservatives). That doesn't make things better. But still, our right-wing parties are still very different from the US Democrats. I think that is true in most European countries.

    For me society means: "we do things together". Government is "us, doing things together". In the US, doing things together is regarded as the devils-work. (Except having an army together). As long as that attitude doesn't change, I consider the US the most capitalistic country in the world.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 31st Jan 2021 at 07:35.

  21. #46
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Yeah, whatever you say, chief.
    I responded to you saying:
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    .. the reason I don't think so is the rise in price is nuts, which means the amount of money going into this is inordinate compared to anything your "nasty share-tradey entity" would put into a single stock.
    Price is what somebody is willing to pay for something.
    It doesn't always reflect "value" or "worth".
    I'm sure you know that. But maybe you don't realize how that applies here.

    The value or worth of a stock of GME is related to what the company does, and how much profit they make. But that's not relevant here. The price is dictated by the fact that the hedgefunds have put themselves in an impossible situation. They need to own more stock than exists. So they need to buy stock, no matter what. And when there are more buyers than sellers, price always goes up.

    Same thing with medicine. Suppose a pill cost 10 cents to produce. Suppose development-costs were another 50 cents per pill. You can sell that pill for $1, and still make a decent profit. But if someone's life depends on it, they are willing to pay whatever it takes. To stay alive. You can ask $10 or $1000 for such a pill. Price is only whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Is it fair? No. But hedgefunds have played these games forever. Screwing over the little man. Screwing over companies. Screwing over other investors (like more honest pensionfunds and mutual funds).

    Also, the price is going up so fast, because there are not enough sellers. Everyone is holding. In a market with small number of operations, each operation has a much bigger impact on price.

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Oh? You don't think that investors in hedgefunds might be other entities that DO affect the "little man" if it goes tits up?
    I checked for my country. In NL we have the best pension-system in the world. Our biggest pensionfund (ABP, half a trillion euros) is the fifth biggest pensionfund in the world. In NL our pensionfunds invest 1-2% of their money in hedgefunds on average. Exception: ABP itself has 4-5% invested in hedgefunds. But over the last 10 years, our pensionfunds are reducing their investments in hedgefunds. Partially because they don't give the promised returns, and they cost too much (commision). I'm no financial expert, so my knowledge is based on 30 minutes of googling. But it seems hedgefunds are shrinking world-wide. Let's hope so.

  22. #47
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post

    Price is what somebody is willing to pay for something.
    It doesn't always reflect "value" or "worth".
    I'm sure you know that. But maybe you don't realize how that applies here.
    Yes, of course I know this. I get what's going on. I don't get why you'd think I don't understand the concept of supply and demand (as you've explained with the pills) from my post.


    Aaaaaanyway, I'm not sure I agree with you on the religious nature of Europe. It's much more religious than you might think at first glance. I think the UK, Netherlands and Northern Europe are much more secular than the USA but Southern and Eastern Europe... I don't agree. Ireland has laws that are deeply rooted in religion. The abortion rules have changed but for years they were barbaric and based on Christian "values". This is true of both the Republic and Northern Ireland. The attitudes were VERY reminiscent of American Republican idiots.

  23. #48
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post

    I checked for my country. In NL we have the best pension-system in the world. Our biggest pensionfund (ABP, half a trillion euros) is the fifth biggest pensionfund in the world. In NL our pensionfunds invest 1-2% of their money in hedgefunds on average. Exception: ABP itself has 4-5% invested in hedgefunds. But over the last 10 years, our pensionfunds are reducing their investments in hedgefunds. Partially because they don't give the promised returns, and they cost too much (commision). I'm no financial expert, so my knowledge is based on 30 minutes of googling. But it seems hedgefunds are shrinking world-wide. Let's hope so.
    So this is it. 4-5% isn't a trivial amount. And you could imagine a private pension fund investing more than that.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless Voice View Post
    But I think the most likely outcome is to just make it clear how crooked our world is, when governments who won't lift a finger for the average citizen will intercede to protect hedge funds.
    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    You seem to think that the redditors do this only to fuck the hedgefunds, even though they lose all their money themselves. It's not. The redditors can make money from this. What the small guys are doing, manipulating the market, is exactly what the hedgefunds have been doing for decades. But now the hedgefunds fall victim to their own game. And suddenly these "let the market decide everything"-whimps start crying "dear government, please put in regulations to protect us. and if we go belly up, because of our greedy and stupid strategies, please bail us out".
    This ^^^

    Hedge funds like a market that is deregulated enough for them to unfairly manipulate it, but regulated enough to make sure they are the only ones who can do the manipulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    It's not just Reese-Mogg types that are affected. Any of us could have a stake in this... and have lost 1000s so far.
    Any of us could have a stake in a hedge fund? Think again. Most hedge funds require minimum investments on the order of $1M.

    What about the people who were invested in Gamestop before all this started? You OK with them getting screwed?

    This started with a hedge fund who identified a vulnerable stock and bet that they could destroy it. They didn't care that it was a retail company with thousands of stores and tens of thousands of employees, who got hit hard by closures due to the pandemic. The fund managers and fund investors couldn't care less if they ruined the company in the process.

    A majority of Gamestop shares are owned by mutual funds. Average folks who are saving for retirement invest through mutual funds. They are kept out of hedge funds by the minimum investment requirements and therefore they never see the biggest gains. So if the big short were successful, it would have taken retirement savings from lots and lots of average people and transferred it into the accounts of very wealthy people.

    So you're good with a bunch of rich investors taking from the retirement accounts of normal folks and potentially wrecking a company and destroying thousands of jobs, but when redditors organize a grass roots sort of effort to flip the advantage, you consider that criminal behavior? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    I still think it's amazing that after hedge funds destroyed millions of people's lives in 08, the GOP still had the balls to run Romney in '12. Then again, Obama's administration was full of hedge fund managers so I guess it was a wash.
    Would you have preferred Rick Santorum?

  25. #50
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post

    So you're good with a bunch of rich investors taking from the retirement accounts of normal folks and potentially wrecking a company and destroying thousands of jobs, but when redditors organize a grass roots sort of effort to flip the advantage, you consider that criminal behavior? Really?
    Call Nic Cage! heywood is making a strawman big enough for that Wickerman sequel!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •