TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: GameStop and criminal behaviour

  1. #1
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die

    GameStop and criminal behaviour

    This GameStop business is crazy. There's some very shady practices coming to light. A lot of politicians and big business bods putting their oar in now.

    Anyone affected by this? Involved in it?

  2. #2
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    I wish I knew how to link a movie from Reddit here.
    I don't. So here's a link to the movie. Funny.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetb...ef_source=link

    Go, Reddit Retards, go !!
    I just hope no little people will get hurt.

  3. #3
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    pfft thats weak, this is where its really at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Currently sitting on three shares of GME.

    Because fuck 'em.

  5. #5
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Go, Catbarf, go !!!

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    The porn industry predicted this whole thing years ago


  7. #7
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    It's a huge movement, hundreds of thousands of random people from all walks of life and political leanings, working together to enact change.

    It would be nice if we could get that kind of organisation on more social matters, but I can still get behind the cause of making slimy people like Jacob Rees-Mogg suffer.

    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.

  8. #8
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    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.

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: Darmstadt, Germany
    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.
    The only way to have had a stake in this and have lost 1000s is if you'd been shorting the stock. I'm fairly sure no little people would have done that or if they had, then I'd say well deserved.

  10. #10
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    That's not illegal, but in any case you're wrong. If you had significant investments in those funds you might have lost money.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: New Zealand
    If reddit nerds hadn't spotted the fund exposing themselves to this kinda risk by selling an absurd excess of ghost shares, another big nasty share-tradey entity probably would have. It's part of how the stock market works, the main reason a lot of people are getting shitty about it is that this time it's not billion-dollar entities doing the punishing. If you wanna blame someone, it's 1) fund managers and 2) neoliberal capitalism

  12. #12
    BANNED
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    You really think they'd normally get caught with their pants down like that? I don't think so and 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.

  13. #13
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    You don't understand what price is.

    When there are relatively few shares being traded, small amounts of trade can have an extaordinary impact on stockprice. Especially when everybody buys, and nobody is selling.

    Those hedgefunds were so sure of their scam (talking and manipulating the price down), that they took huge short positions. They went short for more stock than exists!! And they went short naked. Meaning they didn't buy any stock to cover their position. So when at the due-date the price is higher (higher than what they gambled it would be, after they did their usual manipulation), they need to *have* the number of shares they promised.

    And remember, they need to own more shares for that, than actually exist. So the hedgefunds *need* to buy shares themselves now. To cover their position. And when they buy, price goes up. Against their own interest. That's the beauty of the plan.

    That is why it is an outrage that Robin Hood stopped small investors buying more stock. The hedgefunds want to be the only ones able to buy all the available stock now. So they can cover their position, while keeping price as low as posible. Even then they have a problem, because there just isn't enough stock in the world to cover their position.

    That's why "diamond hands" are so important now. Everybody has to wait until the due-date for the short options of the hedgefunds. Because it is guaranteed the shit will hit the fan.

    I got zero symphatie for hedgefunds. These are not pensionfunds. These are not funds for the litle man to invest his savings. These hedgefunds are scumbag companies, doing whatever cheating and manipulating they can, to make rich people richer. Fuck em.

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    You really think they'd normally get caught with their pants down like that?
    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.

  15. #15
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Another fun thing. Remember recently I called the Democrats something like: "ultra-conservative, ultra-capitalistic assholes"?

    One of the hedgefunds involved is Capital Securities. The redditors are using a free trading service called Robin Hood. How can trading be free, you ask? Well, it turns out Robin Hood sells the trading data for all those free trades. To hedgefunds. So that those hedgefunds have a better understanding of what the market is doing. Basically they have information about what the little man is doing in the market. So they can better manipulate the market. And screw the little guy.

    Robin Hood sells their data to Citadel Securities. So Citadel is the real customer of RH. Not the little people. So that's why RH stopped their little traders from buying more stock. To help their true customer, Citadel.

    That's cheating, isn't it? Why isnt the goverment protecting the free and open market? It turns out some lady called Janet Yellen has done 3 speeches for Citadel during the last 2 years. And got paid $810k for it. Who's Yellen? She's Biden's new secretary of the treasury. Make a wild guess who's side the government is gonna take. The hedgefunds or the little guys?

    Now I wish Hillary had beaten Trump. But when she said in 2016 to a room full of Wallstreet bankers: "don't worry, I got you covered", she was dead serious. So was Obama. Biden will be no different.

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    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.

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Democrats are certainly friendly to big business, as are most politicians, and deserving of a lot of criticism. But let's not pretend as if there is no meaningful difference. It was under Democrats that Dodd-Frank came into existence and it was under Republicans that significant portions of it were rolled back. Democrats established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans sought to cripple it.

    Now, that is not to say there aren't conservative Democrats -- there certainly are, but most of them are bog standard centrists or at least not that far right of centre. They want a capitalist state with some regulation on its worst excesses and some welfare for people who are at the bottom of it. And there is also a more progressive wing who would like things like universal health care, green energy and faster phasing out of fossil fuels, raising minimum wage, free college, campaign finance reform, prison reform etc, which are to some degree supported by the centrists (at least when it's not too inconvenient for them politically).

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    I don't know why some nerds buying gamestop shares highlights the corrupt system to so many people and not the 2008 financial crisis or simply the fact that huge profits are created in this business without anything being produced, merely by pushing numbers around. But if it does, all the better.

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    But let's not pretend as if there is no meaningful difference.
    I don't generally see the behavior of Democrats brought up to equate them to Republicans. It's more to point out that their take on neoliberalism isn't to reform broken or stacked systems so much as to patch them over. Their narrative is always that someone is abusing the system, not that the system is broken.

    The more progressive wing you refer to doesn't have much traction within the party. They've been advocating for those things you mentioned for at least the last fifteen years, and it hasn't gone anywhere. I mean, that's where Sanders's base came from and the rest of the party hated his guts.

    And the point here is that a Democrat as president doesn't mean this is going to lead to reform that favors the little guy. Democrats favor big business too, even if not to the same degree as Republicans.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    I don't know why some nerds buying gamestop shares highlights the corrupt system to so many people and not the 2008 financial crisis
    I think part of it is framing this against the 2008 crisis. Namely that nobody went to prison over '08, but a bunch of Redditors turn the tables on a market-manipulating hedge fund and they're being outright demonized on national TV. A lot of people are still angry about '08, angry about the economic downturn of the last year, angry at hedge funds gaming the system (worth pointing out that their goal was to push Gamestop into bankruptcy, which would mean a lot of people getting fired), and just plain angry at the current state of affairs. This is a convenient outlet.

    But when it comes to hedge funds- and I cannot stress this enough- fuck 'em.

  21. #21
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I've had a lot of thoughts about this and have posted a lot on it, but maybe this (rephrasing it) sums it up...

    I had the idea that blowing their savings to bankrupt an asset management company was the gameplan from the start. I'm no fan of AMCs, but a whole movement built on nursing resentment and hurting yourself just to hurt your enemies more doesn't sound good for the soul in the long run.

    If they cared about games, I think the healthier model is supporting alternative funding sources for innovative games and outlets. I feel like the most immediate fallout of this is that gaming is only going to be considered even more volatile, which will make investors even more wary, and that plays into the hands of the most conservative, focused-grouped, soulless studios and outlets, and anyone else trying to do anything innovative will struggle to find financing. I got the feeling this was a phyrric victory.

    -----

    Edit: I have a slightly different fuck 'em attitude. Life is short and emotional energy & money are scarce. Selfish hedge fund assholes manipulating the market aren't worth people spending their time, energy, and money on just to spite them... They really don't care. And you're not going to see anything you care about coming out of this. GameStop isn't really saved. (I never thought GameStop was good for gamers to begin with, but that's another thing...). The way gaming gets financed is just going to get more locked down to "hedge volatility". The people that got screwed over the most were the final buyers, probably other gamers caught up in the fever. And for a minute here we get a shot of schadenfreude that we lost our money so that they lose everything, but that's not a healthy drug to get addicted to IMO. (And the AMC didn't even lose everything; last I read they just sold a non-controlling share to new co-owners.)

    I can sympathize where they're coming from, but any movement built on stoking rage, resentment, and self-harm doesn't jive with me. That time, emotion, energy, and money would be so much better spent on the games and gaming culture themselves, tending to the things that really matter, than blowing your money just to "send a message" to assholes that won't get it and don't care.
    Last edited by demagogue; 29th Jan 2021 at 23:21.

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I don't generally see the behavior of Democrats brought up to equate them to Republicans. It's more to point out that their take on neoliberalism isn't to reform broken or stacked systems so much as to patch them over. Their narrative is always that someone is abusing the system, not that the system is broken.

    The more progressive wing you refer to doesn't have much traction within the party. They've been advocating for those things you mentioned for at least the last fifteen years, and it hasn't gone anywhere. I mean, that's where Sanders's base came from and the rest of the party hated his guts.

    And the point here is that a Democrat as president doesn't mean this is going to lead to reform that favors the little guy. Democrats favor big business too, even if not to the same degree as Republicans.
    If there are any lessons from the last 4 years, then it's that a patch does a hell of a lot more good than another wound. I'm not suggesting that the Democratic Party is dancing to AOC's or Bernie's tune, as the right wing pundits love to dream, but it's not like the progressive caucus has no influence whatsoever. For one example, the US is now targeting zero carbon emissions by year 2050 and trying to get the energy sector off fossil fuels by 2035 and there are concrete plans to help it happen. Already Biden has reinstated a lot of Obama era environmental rules and is looking to improve fuel efficiency standards. And even Obama tried to improve health care and was the first president in decades to do so in any significant manner. Is that enough? Not by a long shot. 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.

    As for big sweeping change and reform, that's easier said than done. A president certainly isn't going to do it these days, especially when they lack popular support and the kind of the bully pulpit FDR had. Also, while they do theoretically have a majority in the Senate, that just means Joe Manchin has become one of the most powerful people in the US and everything more bolder than basic infrastructure hinges on whether the Democrats can successfully please him.

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    That's not illegal, but in any case you're wrong. If you had significant investments in those funds you might have lost money.
    Short selling may not be illegal but it is immoral. Same as currency trading.

  24. #24
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2004
    I've been watching this clusterfuck and it's a beautiful dumpster fire. I'm not participating in any capacity but I'm enjoying the memes and sheer panic of billion-dollar hedges lol


    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    .... GameStop isn't really saved ... That time, emotion, energy, and money would be so much better spent on the games and gaming culture themselves, tending to the things that really matter, than blowing your money just to "send a message" to assholes that won't get it and don't care.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    I don't know why some nerds buying gamestop shares highlights the corrupt system to so many people and not the 2008 financial crisis ...
    I think the issue is that after 2008 nothing changed. Sure, there were regulations and stuff put in place, but people who lost their houses still lost their houses, people who couldn't get a job still couldn't get a job... the everyday life of an average joe did not get fixed by the lessons learned.

    And as catbarf said, I hear a lot of 2008 comparisons, so I don't think anyone is missing the similarities. One way I've heard it said: redditors are doing to hedgefunds now what hedgefunds did to redditors in 2008

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •