Why Did Reddit Trigger a GameStop Stock Surge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
AI Thread Summary
Gamestop's stock price skyrocketed from $20 to $350 in a matter of weeks, largely due to a coordinated buying effort by Reddit users who aimed to counteract bearish hedge fund positions. This surge has resulted in significant losses for hedge funds while generating paper profits for retail investors. Despite the excitement, concerns remain about the long-term viability of Gamestop as a company, which continues to struggle financially. The situation has sparked discussions about market manipulation, with some arguing that the actions of Reddit traders could be seen as a form of "outsider trading" against traditional hedge fund practices. Overall, the episode highlights the tension between retail investors and institutional players in the stock market.
  • #51
Problem with cornering a market is what to do next, just ask the Hunts or the founder of Piggly Wiggly

https://globalfinancialdata.com/the-piggly-crisis
Clarence Saunders also became part of the last stock corner on the New York Stock Exchange in 1923. The corner became so prominent, that the whole affair became known as the Piggly Crisis. Clarence Saunders was generous, determined, stubborn, and well-known in Memphis. Saunders became known as the home boy who faced off the financiers of Wall Street who were using a bear raid to try and profit from a decline in Piggly Wiggly stock. ...Once the corner is completed and the shorts have covered their positions at the inflated price, little demand is left for the stock. The price of the stock can collapse, leaving the bulls with a burdensome load of debt. The whole process can end up bankrupting both the shorts and the bulls. Piggly Wiggly shares started trading over-the-counter in July 1920 and listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in June 1922. In November, 1922, several of the independently-owned Piggly Wiggly stores in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut failed and went into receivership. Although Saunders’ corporation operated independently of these stores and was profitable, some Wall Street operators saw this as a reason to begin a bear raid on Piggly Wiggly stock. The bear raiders began selling PIggly Wiggly short and spread rumors that the company was in poor shape. Saunders took this challenge personally. He had created Piggly Wiggly stores, created the concept of self-shopping, was spreading his stores across the country, and some bears were trying to create profits by spreading lies about his stores. Saunders decided to “beat the Wall Street professionals at their own game.” Saunders not only used his own money to battle the shorts, but he borrowed ten million dollars from a group of bankers in Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Chattanooga and St. Louis to buy up the existing float. In the Wall Street of the 1920s, bear raids came and went. Companies didn’t go bankrupt because of bear raids, and if the fundamentals of the company were sound, the stock would bounce back after the bear raid was over. Nevertheless, Saunders refused to give into the Wall Street city slickers. Saunders hired Jesse L. Livermore, the most famous bear on Wall Street, to help him break the back of the bear raiders. Within a week, Livermore had bought 105,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, over half the float of 200,000 shares...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Also, its only gambling if you do it with your own money. Serious investors gamble trade with other people's money.

Dont see much impact on Gamestop, but hopefully some employees with company stock languishing in their 401K managed to sell. Ultimately the hedge funds are at fault for shorting over 100% of the float of GME and more power to WSB for catching the opportunity.

Volkswagen also did this a couple years ago to its shorts
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Greg Bernhardt
  • #53
what 401k has gamestop stock in it though
 
  • #54
nduka-san said:
what 401k has gamestop stock in it though
Presumably Gamestop has an employee stock purchase program
 
  • #55
nduka-san said:
its fun to watch the little guy win
HUH ? @nduka-san I don't think you understand what's going on. The "little guys" including teachers and nurses and so forth that have their life savings in pension funds that have invested in the hedge funds that got hurt are NOT going to share your belief.
 
  • #56
nduka-san said:
what 401k has gamestop stock in it though
That's irrelevant. See post #55.
 
  • #57
nduka-san said:
what 401k has gamestop stock in it though

Many. CREF alone has three funds (Stock, Social Choice and Equity Index) that hold it.
 
  • #58
phinds said:
HUH ? @nduka-san I don't think you understand what's going on. The "little guys" including teachers and nurses and so forth that have their life savings in pension funds that have invested in the hedge funds that got hurt are NOT going to share your belief.
if te big guys do it as well its only making it a fair playing field
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes 256bits and Vanadium 50
  • #59
nduka-san said:
if te big guys do it as well its only making it a fair playing field
Do WHAT? Do you think "the big guys" have ever caused a $20 stock to go to $500 and whipsaw up and down over a period of two or three days?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #60
no but they still influence it in their favor.
 
  • #61
russ_watters said:
why do so many individual people still insist on playing? Do they not really believe it is fixed?

There are two games.

One game is where you buy into a company and make your money through appreciation and dividends. I have made a lot of money playing this game. This is not a zero-sum game.

Another game is where you try and out-trade your trading partner. This is a zero-sum game. Expecting to win this game against a well-supported pro is like expecting to win one-on-one with Michael Jordan at his peak. Even without any cheating, I wouldn't expect to win. I wouldn't even expect to break even.
 
  • #62
Vanadium 50 said:
There are two games.

One game is where you buy into a company and make your money through appreciation and dividends. I have made a lot of money playing this game. This is not a zero-sum game.

Another game is where you try and out-trade your trading partner. This is a zero-sum game. Expecting to win this game against a well-supported pro is like expecting to win one-on-one with Michael Jordan at his peak. Even without any cheating, I wouldn't expect to win. I wouldn't even expect to break even.
except today it was mj vs hundredss of elementary or middle schools in this scenario, not very experienced but very good teamwork.
 
  • #63
Except the pro zero-sum game is more like rock-paper-sissors than the NBA
 
  • #64
phinds said:
HUH ? @nduka-san I don't think you understand what's going on. The "little guys" including teachers and nurses and so forth that have their life savings in pension funds that have invested in the hedge funds that got hurt are NOT going to share your belief.
Then the managers of those funds aren't worth their 6 figure salary if they got whopped by a bunch of amateurs.
 
  • #65
256bits said:
Then the managers of those funds aren't worth their 6 figure salary if they got whopped by a bunch of amateurs.
Six figures? LOL, Try three comma
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, 256bits and russ_watters
  • #66
Next thing I'd like to challenge. There is no "Wall Street". There are banks, and brokers, and analysts, and so on. It's an interrelated system, to be sure, but it is made up of individual actors with their own motivations and reward structures.

Many of these people influence stock prices. A broker does so by putting buyers and sellers together. An analyst writes reports on the financial health and prospects of various companies as she sees it. This is not only legal, it is necessary. What they cannot do, however, is to collude. (This happened with LIBOR a few years back - billions of dollars in fines and 14-year prison terms for some of the bad actors.)

I think a good question is whether the Reddit folks colluded to manipulate stock prices. Is it collusion, or is it conversation? Certainly someone who bought the stock, then talked about running up the price on Reddit, and sold it while telling others to keep buying is in a worse position than someone who just talked.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and russ_watters
  • #67
phinds said:
HUH ? @nduka-san I don't think you understand what's going on. The "little guys" including teachers and nurses and so forth that have their life savings in pension funds that have invested in the hedge funds that got hurt are NOT going to share your belief.
Boy, I hope pensions aren't invested in hedge funds. My sister is an analyst for such funds and I'm pretty sure it's all fixed/guaranteed income; bonds and such.
 
  • #68
Vanadium 50 said:
One game is where you buy into a company and make your money through appreciation and dividends. I have made a lot of money playing this game. This is not a zero-sum game.
It's not zero sum, but measuring success isn't against a baseline of zero either. Most individual investors still lose if they measure themselves against market averages. That's what I mean when I say they think they are winning but they aren't.
 
  • #69
russ_watters said:
Boy, I hope pensions aren't invested in hedge funds. My sister is an analyst for such funds and I'm pretty sure it's all fixed/guaranteed income; bonds and such.

not as much as they were 10 years ago before performance began to suck, but yes, large plans generally have some allocation to hedge funds. Most of the assets are stocks and private equity. No hope of meeting actuarial return assumptions of 7-8% with a large allocation of bonds
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and russ_watters
  • #70
russ_watters said:
Boy, I hope pensions aren't invested in hedge funds. My sister is an analyst for such funds and I'm pretty sure it's all fixed/guaranteed income; bonds and such.

Oh yes they are. And it has not always gone well.

Even 401(K)'s can do so, (just this year in fact) in very limited circumstances.

russ_watters said:
Most individual investors still lose if they measure themselves against market averages. That's what I mean when I say they think they are winning but they aren't.

I don't know. My portfolio over the last five years has returned 12.33%. I think that's pretty good. In the same period with the same methodology, the S&P 500 returned 12.89%. So I came within 56 basis points of the market after fees, transaction costs and the like, with a portfolio with substantially less risk. If this is losing...

I am an accredited investor, so I have access to hedge funds. Do I have any money in them? Nope. They have very high fees, and the fraction that do well enough to justify these fees is about what you'd expect from chance alone. (I do have investments in funds with very high minimums, however.) That makes it hard to decide whether Fund X is better or worse than Fund Y based on past performance, so I stay away. I'll take my 12.33% thank you.
 
  • #71
And no decent hedge fund will accept someone who only is an accredited investor
 
  • #72
nduka-san said:
is it a good news letter

It is illegal to offer financial advice, at least here in Australia where I am, unless you are licenced so I will need to be carefull about what I say. I subscribe and it is the main tool for my investing strategy with the Donnelly Zone Charts:
https://investingtimes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Zone-System-research-paper.pdf

It contains other tools as well:
https://investingtimes.com.au/evidence-of-nine-investment-strategies/
But I only use the Zone system.

For example at the beginning of the pandemic about March the market was oversold which is a buy signal in my strategy. It is now close to being overvalued and, again in my strategy, that is a signal to sell or shift to defensive assets like a blue chip international bond fund. For small cap shares that I use it is way overvalued - buying a small cap ETF in March and selling now would would have given a cool 40% profit. It contains all sorts of other interesting information including the same charts for the US markets - which is at the moment moderately oversold so another strategy would be to switch out of an Australian small cap fund to a US ETF. It is basically a tool for dynamic asset allocation. A good book to use figuring out your strategy is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005XM6NRY/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It provides a lot of information for many different strategies, you chose the one that suits your risk tolerance. This is for informational purposes only, and is not to be construed as financial advice.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #74
BWV said:
decent hedge fund

I am not sure such a thing exists. Are there more funds than can be explained by chance and survivor bias? It appears not? And becoming a rich hedge fund manager is not the same as becoming a rich(er) hedge fund client? The 2&20 fee structure guarantees it.

Put another way, for a hedge fund to match my yield (12.33%) it needs to return 17.4% just to take care of the fees. Bridgewater Pure Alpha doesn't come close, and the risk (for any hedge, not just this one) is much higher.

While it is possible that hedge funds might serve some people's financial needs, it's hard to see how they serve mine.
 
  • #75
Vanadium 50 said:
I am not sure such a thing exists. Are there more funds than can be explained by chance and survivor bias? It appears not? And becoming a rich hedge fund manager is not the same as becoming a rich(er) hedge fund client? The 2&20 fee structure guarantees it.

Put another way, for a hedge fund to match my yield (12.33%) it needs to return 17.4% just to take care of the fees. Bridgewater Pure Alpha doesn't come close, and the risk (for any hedge, not just this one) is much higher.

While it is possible that hedge funds might serve some people's financial needs, it's hard to see how they serve mine.
I don't disagree, but hedge funds were great before they got discovered by institutional investors in the early 2000s and money flowed in. Your 12.3% was thanks to a bull market, but there used to be fairly simple trading strategies, like merger or convert arb that put up net of fee returns like that every year with bond-like vol.
 
  • #76
Greg Bernhardt said:
For many, day trading and individual stock picking is gambling wrapped with a sense of financial responsibility marketed by big institutions.

Day trading - forget it - and that is from the experience of giving it a go. I used CFD's (evidently illegal in the US). Basically it was a slow way to losing your money. I did OK overall because just before I gave it away I had some short positions during a major market correction in I think 2007. I just let it run until I thought it had stabilised - that was a big profit that made up for my losses. I should have let it continue - it dropped a lot more in the following weeks.

Short/medium term trading is less gambling - some strategies like the Jim Berg strategy are OK. You can look him up on the internet if you want - for an overview see the following video: .

It actually does work - I just wasn't suited to actively managing it each day as was required. Do not get too carried away by the returns though - because stocks are rarely held more than a year you pay full tax - at least in Aus - keep over a year you pay half the tax - or simply buy and hold and you pay none. After tax returns were no better than long term trading/investing I eventually settled on. But if you want to trade full time then it is an option - just not one suited to me.

Long term investment/trading using funds and dynamic asset allocation was what worked best in my situation. In my dynamic allocation for tax reasons I rarely actually sell - just put in new money to the asset class most out of whack with what it should be. I do not know why but people seem to rarely take into account tax considerations in their investing/trading - but it is very important.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Vanadium 50 said:
I am not sure such a thing exists.

Mathematician James Simons of Chern-Simons fame might disagree on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies

But you or me making any use of it is so close to zero it's not worth even thinking about. The average hedge fund is IMHO useless, although some financial advisers recommend them as an anticorrelation asset in a diversified portfolio. Personally I want nothing to do with them.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #78
bhobba said:
Mathematician James Simons of Chern-Simons fame might disagree on that

I'm sure he would. I expect he would agree with the comment that it's easier to make money running a hedge fund than investing in a hedge fund, although it might be impolitic to say so.

Long term, most hedge funds trail the market. Often by a lot. Most close after just a few years. The remainder can be explained by survivorship bias.

In this environment, the best one can hope for is "yes, most of these are turkeys, but this one is different. It's the real deal. It's the one that has found the magic formula to justify these fees." It might even be true, but how do you pick that one out among all the other ones that are saying exactly the same thing?
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, bhobba and russ_watters
  • #79
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm sure he would. I expect he would agree with the comment that it's easier to make money running a hedge fund than investing in a hedge fund, although it might be impolitic to say so.

simons kicked out all his investors 20 years ago and the firm only manages employee’s money. Compounded at something like 60% net of trading costs and gross of fees since the 90s, by far the best investment record of anyone - but no other hedge funds come close, even competitors like DE Shaw who employ similar quant techniques
 
  • #80
Whelp, it's 9am, the market is opening soon, and Robin Hood is letting redditors buy Stonks! again, so it could be another wild one.
 
  • #81
russ_watters said:
Whelp, it's 9am, the market is opening soon, and Robin Hood is letting redditors buy Stonks! again, so it could be another wild one.
I watched a couple of minutes this morning right after the open.

Code:
GameStop Corp. GME 399.95 +206.35 +106.59%
                   410.96 +217.36 +112.27%
                   354.35 +160.75 +83.03%

I think trading halted for about 5 minutes, then it varied between 300 and 325. A lot of volatility.
 
  • #82
1611912290047.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Klystron, russ_watters, Dale and 2 others
  • #83
OK, the last of the split messages:

There has been a suggestion that somehow short sales are, while legal, immoral. I'd like people who think this to expound on this.

Are other transactions betwen willing partners immoral? Why or why not?
If so, which ones? Put and call options?
Is one side of the transaction OK but the other not?
Is it OK for institutions to trade with each other but not individuals?

In short, I am very interested in why people think short sales are wrong, and how this might (or might not) be generalized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron, russ_watters and BWV
  • #84
Vanadium 50 said:
OK, the last of the split messages:

There has been a suggestion that somehow short sales are, while legal, immoral. I'd like people who think this to expound on this.

Are other transactions betwen willing partners immoral? Why or why not?
If so, which ones? POut and call options?
Is one side of the transaction OK but the other not?
Is it OK for institutions to trade with each other but not individuals?

In short, I am very interested in why people think short sales are wrong, and how this might (or might not) be generalized.
Farmers have been short selling their crops since Hammurabi's day
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #85
Thales of Miletus invented options trading. When he wasn't inventing mathematics.
 
  • #86
Just found this article reviewing the history of "WallStreetBets" on CNN Business as well as some of the reasons it has become so popular and why it is dangerous to participants.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Vanadium 50
  • #87
russ_watters said:
Whelp, it's 9am, the market is opening soon, and Robin Hood is letting redditors buy Stonks! again, so it could be another wild one.
Still limited buys on GME, though. :smile:

I wonder what'd happen if they didn't have limits?
 
  • #88
GME losses now ~$20 billion for hedge fund shorties and they are still not backing down:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/29/gam...te-nearly-20-billion-in-losses-this-year.html

  • Short-selling hedge funds have suffered a mark-to-market loss of $19.75 billion year to date in the brick-and-mortar video game retailer, according to data from S3 Partners.
  • Still, short sellers mostly are holding onto their bearish positions or they are being replaced by new hedge funds willing to bet against the stock.
 
  • #89
bhobba said:
some strategies like the Jim Berg strategy are OK.

He appears to be an advocate of what is called "technical analysis", a school of thought that holds that one can forecast future prices from historical data, primarily price, but also volume and sometimes open options contracts. I think Wikipedia's statement is fair: "Whether technical analysis actually works is a matter of controversy."

Even granting that it works in all cases, it would fall into my "out-trade your partner" category. Surely JPMorgan Chase will be better at it than I am.
 
  • #90
Question: Why aren't (or, are they?) the hedge fund clients exposed to these GME losses not just pulling their money out (or, can they?)?

How are these fund managers exposed able to continue to fight on (yes, I know Melvin was infused with capital from several other funds)? . . .Wouldn't this freak out all their clients?
 
  • #91
Here is a screenshot of GME prices over 5 days. Graph displays candlesticks and Bollinger bands.
1611947628940.png


Same price display for 1-day at 11:30 PST 29Jan2021. Churn and burn?
1611947804646.png
 
  • #92
Vanadium 50 said:
He appears to be an advocate of what is called "technical analysis", a school of thought that holds that one can forecast future prices from historical data, primarily price, but also volume and sometimes open options contracts. I think Wikipedia's statement is fair: "Whether technical analysis actually works is a matter of controversy."

He sure does. All short-medium term traders do it and many combine it with fundamental analysis. His strategy is basically look for fundamentally sound stocks whose price is on the rise - a momentum strategy. Wait for a pullback, then for the pullback to show signs of ending, That is the buy point. Then put in a stop underneath it that you sell if it goes below that and a profit taker if it rises above it. I have back tested and live tested it years ago when I was into that sort of thing, and followed the example trades he puts in his newsletter. It does work - but is a pain to implement - nowhere near as easy as nearly set and forget long term investing, where you simply adjust your tactical allocation when you regularly add money to your portfolio. It produces reasonable profits, but is not tax effective. It is fine if you want to trade for a living, are able to spend the time, muck around with charting programs the night before and put your orders in when the market opens (no sleeping in). You have to live day to day off your profits. It's more like a job. If you like it - fine. If not you may as well do a job you like and long term invest. If retired you just want to enjoy your retirement. That's why I no longer even invest - I just can't be bothered - now is the time to relax and enjoy it. To be fair to invest doesn't actually take much work. From my pension I have about $1000 left over each month and could add that to an investment portfolio - but now I just keep it in the bank. I may take it up again one day. But all it will do is increase the money I have enough for my lifestyle anyway.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #93
kyphysics said:
Question: Why aren't (or, are they?) the hedge fund clients exposed to these GME losses not just pulling their money out (or, can they?)?

How are these fund managers exposed able to continue to fight on (yes, I know Melvin was infused with capital from several other funds)? . . .Wouldn't this freak out all their clients?

Hedge funds have limited liquidity - typically only quarterly withdrawals with 60 or 90 day prior notice. Losses like this typically force funds to shut down as investors put in withdrawal notices
 
  • #94
BWV said:
Hedge funds have limited liquidity - typically only quarterly withdrawals with 60 or 90 day prior notice. Losses like this typically force funds to shut down as investors put in withdrawal notices
Thanks! Interesting to know.

Any idea if what I'm reading (unofficial sources...just Reddit, etc.) is true: that the shorts don't have a time-limit for when they have to be covered? Although, one person explained that there is a premium they have to bleed if they don't cover, so it's not possible to hold the shorts forever...

Wondering how this situation plays out with both WSBers and the hedge funds holding out against each other it seems.
 
  • #95
Here is a take on the GameStop buying and the investment houses by a professional financial advisor and editor of the Bauman letter

 
  • #96
kyphysics said:
Thanks! Interesting to know.

Any idea if what I'm reading (unofficial sources...just Reddit, etc.) is true: that the shorts don't have a time-limit for when they have to be covered? Although, one person explained that there is a premium they have to bleed if they don't cover, so it's not possible to hold the shorts forever...

Wondering how this situation plays out with both WSBers and the hedge funds holding out against each other it seems.
No time limit, but there are solvency issues - brokers will force a margin call if the assets in the fund are not sufficient to cover the short. Remember a short sale is a liability, so as the price of GME increases, the liability increases causing the equity value of the HF shorting the stock declines. Brokers set limits, typically 25% equity before they require a margin call. So a fund that took a tiny position in GME would be fine and would in theory never have to cover (as is anyone who was short the whole market). But a 5% initial short position after a 17x increase would be 85% of the fund (assuming no other price changes). For funds that had some leverage to begin with, this would be fatal - an 80% decline in value and (assuming the short proceeds were held in cash) a corresponding increase in leverage from 0 to 80%.
 
  • Like
Likes kyphysics and bhobba
  • #97
But the counterparty might not want a margin call now, knowing it will likely bankrupt the fund. They might want to wait until the prices have become more reasonable, leaving the fund solvent but owing them a lot of money.

If you owe the bank $5000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $5,000,000, the bank has a problem.
-and-
I want my sheep shorn, not slaughtered.
 
  • #98
Just an interesting comment about investor psychology. Years ago now I read a book called the Little Book That Beats The Market that described a value based strategy of stock investing:
https://www.magicformulainvesting.com/Home/AboutTheBook

Value investing is one of the few strategies that there is evidence it can beat the market over the long term. It uses a formula to find such stocks that you can find in the book, but others that find value stocks also work, such as the p/e ratio. Anyway back testing showed it beat the market. Since the book was written they looked at how it performed - and it still worked. You may think - hang on - once people know it the efficient market hypothesis means it will stop working. But it still worked. Here is the suggested reason as to why. You only needed once a year to sell 20 stocks and buy 20 more - hardly much work. You say great - might give it a go myself. But interestingly what the author found is very very few people could stick to even such a simple strategy. They fretted and worried when the market went up and their stocks went down for example. Also there is administrative work associated with even such a simple strategy. He found only 3% of people could stick to it - most - including the author - wanted someone else to do it for them. And therein lies the big issue with investing - you can come up with a simple easy strategy like the book details - but motivating yourself to keep doing it over the long haul - which is the only way to make the big bucks by compound interest - is far from easy. After all most would rather spend money and have fun. It's like the experiments they did with I think it was jelly beans. Kids were given a bowl of jelly beans and told they would get twice as many if they refrained from eating any. Most could not resist. But those that did resist were found to do better in life. Delayed gratification seems a good predictor of success.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #99
I'm not knowledgeable about economics or stocks unfortunately. This event has me starting to research so I can understand better what's happening.

I'm curious how this plays out for Gamestop long term. I was an avid gamer, and I have a dozen or so friends who are hard core gamers. I can say without a doubt that in the last four years, not one of us has frequented a game store such as Gamestop or EB Games. The trend has entirely been towards online transactions for everything: games, additional content, Xbox live, etc. Even with people buying stocks or whatever, I don't see the business itself improving a whole lot.
 
  • #100
Is there ANY way for the hedge funds with big GME short exposure to cover their shorts at a small enough price to live to see another day. They don't have much bargaining power, right?

WSB's Reddit posters are all coming out saying they're holding their shares and not selling. If enough people do this, is the end game ultimately the bankrupting of these funds?
 

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top