OT: Game Stop | Page 8 | Syracusefan.com

OT: Game Stop

I have done cash secured puts on the stocks hyped in wallstreetbets for years with much success. I ended up with 146 options contracts of GameStop at $14.20 and just continually ran covered calls on them this past 6 months. About 9000 of the shares have been called away at various prices, but GME has been very, very kind to my portfolio. The same strategy can be applied to pretty much any high IV meme stock with great success if you know what you’re doing.

If my math is right, you put at least 203k into a stock most analysts believe will go bankrupt sooner than later... You are a braver investor than me.

But... Good job!
 
Portnoy got Steve Cohen to blowup and destroy his twitter account.
Cohen’s lawyer/legal council probably told him to do it.

The suits know something is coming.
 
I've stayed out of this thread and done a ton of reading on this the last few days. I am basically convinced "the hedge funds" (for lack of a better term) had nothing to do with this even though I suppose it makes for a very good story and gets a lot of retweets

 
I've stayed out of this thread and done a ton of reading on this the last few days. I am basically convinced "the hedge funds" (for lack of a better term) had nothing to do with this even though I suppose it makes for a very good story and gets a lot of retweets

You read about Robin Hood correct?
60% of RH’s business comes from The Citadel hedge fund by itself.
Cohen and Point72 had to bail out Melvin.

40% of RH business comes from daily retail traders.

The Citadel was part of the major short against Game Stop.

Hopefully their is a legitimate investigation.

You present a legitimate counter though.
 
I just love the fact Cohen deleted his entire Twitter profile a day after going at Dave Portnoy.
That wasn’t done for no reason.
Bobby Axelrod is going silent.
lol too funny.

The best thing about this week is I finally have friends and family ask me about what is going on that have had zero interest in the market before.

My barber who’s a big sports bettor and casino buff wants me to help set up his own retail account. The more regular people who get into the market the better and healthier it is for the market overall.
 
lol too funny.

The best thing about this week is I finally have friends and family ask me about what is going on that have had zero interest in the market before.

My barber who’s a big sports bettor and casino buff wants me to help set up his own retail account. The more regular people who get into the market the better and healthier it is for the market overall.
Ignorant question, but what exactly is a "retail investor?"
 
Just regular people who aren’t licensed that buy and sell their own securities without the help of an advisor.

Not quite correct.

People who work with an advisor are also themselves retail investors.

(Although many of the products and platforms used by the advisors for benefit their clients are institutional -
mutual funds, ETF’s, SMA’s, etc.)

The main 2 categories are retail investors & institutional investors.
 
You read about Robin Hood correct?
60% of RH’s business comes from The Citadel hedge fund by itself.
Cohen and Point72 had to bail out Melvin.

40% of RH business comes from daily retail traders.

The Citadel was part of the major short against Game Stop.

Hopefully their is a legitimate investigation.

You present a legitimate counter though.

Not entirely true.

Citadel has a market making side, that is separate from the hedge fund, that pays for order flow and executes a lot of trades on RH. (them paying RH for order flow is a big part of the reason RH can offer free trading) They really don't have any crossover with the hedge fund.

The mechanics of actually buying and settling all these trades is something that I really wasn't all that aware, mostly because generally it's pretty boring and doesnt matter like 99% of the time. But this was the 1% of the time!

RH is basically responsible for the trades until they settle 2 days later. They need to have enough cash/collateral in case the trades fail on settle date. The volatility got so high this week they needed to put up a lot more (10x!) collateral than they normally would. And they didn't have it!

By Michael P. Regan
(Bloomberg) -- The rarely discussed role that clearing
firms play in settling stock trades is at the heart of what
caused Robinhood and other brokerages to restrict trading of
some companies this week.
Larry Tabb, head of market-structure research at Bloomberg
Intelligence, explains how the process works in a Q&A below.
Question: So what is the most important thing to understand
here?
Tabb: The settlement process -- cash and securities
officially change hands two days after a trade. During those two
days, a lot of things can happen. The problem is, what happens
when a trading counterparty and/or a firm cannot afford to pay
for the securities they bought? If that occurred, and if the
clearinghouse didn’t guarantee the other side of the trade, then
the client would either not receive securities or not get paid,
and the trade would have to be broken.
That is very bad. Not necessarily for a retail client
buying 100 shares or so, but what if it was a big fund or a
major player, like Robinhood or let’s say Lehman Brothers?

So if Lehman were to default (which it did) on all of its
trades, then all of the folks on the other side of Lehman’s
trades would send in their securities to Lehman, but wouldn’t
get paid. Then the brokers who didn’t get paid wouldn’t be able
to afford to pay for the securities that they bought. So you
would have cascading failures.
So to ensure this doesn’t happen, they have clearinghouses.
The clearinghouse takes the other side of the trade and
guarantees settlement even if someone like Lehman goes bust. To
do that, they have a waterfall of capital. First there is the
securities in the client’s account (which support the broker and
not the clearinghouse), then the margin provided by the broker ,
then there is capital provided by the clearing member, then
there are IOUs by the big brokers to fund the clearinghouse,
then there are central banks.
Question: Can you explain how high-flying stocks like
GameStop and AMC make clearing firms require more margin
collateral?
Tabb: So the amount of margin needed is determined by the
riskiness of the securities that are bought. Most securities’
value stays pretty stable. However, given the volatility of
these names and their overvalue, the problem is: Who knows what
they are worth? And given that two-day lag, the clearinghouse
can’t guarantee that the buyers will pay for their securities
nor the sellers will come up with the securities to deliver.
Question: So if I’m a Robinhood customer, and I buy shares
of GameStop or AMC or any of these wild Reddit stocks, what
would prevent my counterparty from being able to deliver? I’m
guessing if it’s a super-high short interest, the brokerage on
the other side may struggle to find the stock to deliver?
Tabb: Yup. And the problem is, if I am a hedge fund and I
am short GME at $30, I have to buy it back at $500 or pay some
astronomical fee to borrow it.
Question: So firms like Citadel Securities, which execute
trades for brokerages like Robinhood, have nothing to do with
this?
Tabb: No.
Question: So a clearing firm somewhere got concerned, and
called Robinhood and said this has all gotten out of hand, we
need more money in your account?
Tabb: So Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. -- actually
National Securities Clearing Corp., which is owned by DTCC --
upped the capital that is needed to guarantee those trades. Now
the broker can’t guarantee those trades with the clients’ cash -
- a la MF Global -- the broker needs to pledge their own
capital. And given the massive trading in GameStop, AMC, the
amount of capital was really substantial. And Robinhood and a
few others just didn’t have the capital. So Robinhood needed to
borrow $1 billion to cover their clients’ settlement.
 
Do not trade based on Reddit threads. What we’re seeing with Gamestop is the exception that proves the rule. If you go chasing Reddit stock tips, you’ll lose your money real quick.
I've been following wallstreetbets almost a year now. There are certainly some pump and dump/foreign agents at work, but there are also really solid investors that know their stuff.

The best thing about it is you have to post proof of your position. You can find out who knows what they are talking about vs who doesn't pretty quick.

Once this GME stuff goes away, jump back on there in 3 months to find some fun positions.

I do agree though, don't invest in that stuff unless it is money you are okay with losing.
 
Not entirely true.

Citadel has a market making side, that is separate from the hedge fund, that pays for order flow and executes a lot of trades on RH. (them paying RH for order flow is a big part of the reason RH can offer free trading) They really don't have any crossover with the hedge fund.

The mechanics of actually buying and settling all these trades is something that I really wasn't all that aware, mostly because generally it's pretty boring and doesnt matter like 99% of the time. But this was the 1% of the time!

RH is basically responsible for the trades until they settle 2 days later. They need to have enough cash/collateral in case the trades fail on settle date. The volatility got so high this week they needed to put up a lot more (10x!) collateral than they normally would. And they didn't have it!
I get what you are saying but Vlad was asked point blank on TV after lawsuits were already filed if RH had a liquid issue and he said no.

That statement will be used against them in court and everyone knows RH will eventually file for bankruptcy if the liquid issue is the main reason for why they couldn’t allow trades and they can’t pay consumers.

They RH allowed the hedge funds to save their losses with their move.
The SEC knows people are watching them for real for the first time.
I don’t believe what RH has said.
I will never trade on RH again.
You can’t change the rules mid game unannounced. The rules have to be changed for everyone. The stock shouldn’t have been allowed to be bought or sold it should have been frozen.
There are mechanisms in place.
What RH did was so anti-free trade the system deserves what Liz Warren does to it and I am not a fan of Senator Warren.
 
Just a week ago shares were at $39, supposed to open at over $400 a share today. Damn, I wish I had paid more attention to reddit threads. I love that the common man is doing this to all those big time hedge funders.

If you had a $5,000 and invested a week ago you would have 128 shares. That would be valued at $51,200 today.
So, we are 8 pages into this thread and, other than the margin-related restrictions mentioned in one of the posts by Fat Tire, there has been zero mention of the fact that DTCC raised industrywide collateral requirements by 27% overnight and that Robinhood had to raise an additional 1BN of capital and draw down on 500MM of credit lines in order to meet the increased margin requirements.

So, while I would not put it past people like Cohen and Griffin to exert whatever pressure they could if they felt financially threatened, there is an equally, if not more, plausible explanation for Robinhood restricting trading in certain names: jacked-up margin requirements.

It isn't sexy; it doesn't generate outrage. It doesn't get your tweet retweeted a gazillion times and pasted into this thread. It doesn't get AOC and Cruz into the headlines but it is a very real alternative for what happened this week.

Instead of rushing to judgement and embracing the worst possible alternative, how about waiting for the facts to come out?

This thread reminds me of so much of what happened post-election: so many claims and accusations of fraud that were immediately embraced and perpetuated that were all ultimately decreed to have no merit by the courts.
 
So, we are 8 pages into this thread and, other than the margin-related restrictions mentioned in one of the posts by Fat Tire, there has been zero mention of the fact that DTCC raised industrywide collateral requirements by 27% overnight and that Robinhood had to raise an additional 1BN of capital and draw down on 500MM of credit lines in order to meet the increased margin requirements.

So, while I would not put it past people like Cohen and Griffin to exert whatever pressure they could if they felt financially threatened, there is an equally, if not more, plausible explanation for Robinhood restricting trading in certain names: jacked-up margin requirements.

It isn't s e xy; it doesn't generate outrage. It doesn't get your tweet retweeted a gazillion times and pasted into this thread. It doesn't get AOC and Cruz into the headlines but it is a very real alternative for what happened this week.

Instead of rushing to judgement and embracing the worst possible alternative, how about waiting for the facts to come out?

This thread reminds me of so much of what happened post-election: so many claims and accusations of fraud that were immediately embraced and perpetuated that were all ultimately decreed to have no merit by the courts.
This ignores the fact RH’s CEO has done multiple interviews and has said their liquidity isn’t why they did what they did.

Again RH could have frozen selling of the stock as well.
It’s said it was looking out for customers when it was only one way.
What happened wasn’t free market.
Again I am staunchly against Senator Liz Warren but what happened this week has me and plenty of others not on her side saying blow up Wall Street with regulation.

I don’t believe Wall Street is free trade anymore.
 
lol too funny.

The best thing about this week is I finally have friends and family ask me about what is going on that have had zero interest in the market before.

My barber who’s a big sports bettor and casino buff wants me to help set up his own retail account. The more regular people who get into the market the better and healthier it is for the market overall.

On the other hand, I've had multiple clients ask me about why they don't have GameStop. :(
 
I get what you are saying but Vlad was asked point blank on TV after lawsuits were already filed if RH had a liquid issue and he said no.

That statement will be used against them in court and everyone knows RH will eventually file for bankruptcy if the liquid issue is the main reason for why they couldn’t allow trades and they can’t pay consumers.

They RH allowed the hedge funds to save their losses with their move.
The SEC knows people are watching them for real for the first time.
I don’t believe what RH has said.
I will never trade on RH again.
You can’t change the rules mid game unannounced. The rules have to be changed for everyone. The stock shouldn’t have been allowed to be bought or sold it should have been frozen.
There are mechanisms in place.
What RH did was so anti-free trade the system deserves what Liz Warren does to it and I am not a fan of Senator Warren.

Yeah. I saw that. I didnt believe it for a second. But I think thats what you say when you're trying to raise money.

I think the "RH allowed hedge funds to save their losses" thing is likely very overplayed. the stock was incredibly shorted. RH being down for a day is really unlikely to make a huge difference. Especially because the stock is still trading at elevated levels. And still has huge short interest! (Also if you believe Melvin, they claim they covered their short before any of this happened. Again. If you believe them)

And again, RH didnt change the rules. It's their clearing brokers and DTCC. The rules are in place to make sure the trades settle. It was not their decision
 
This ignores the fact RH’s CEO has done multiple interviews and has said their liquidity isn’t why they did what they did.

Again RH could have frozen selling of the stock as well.
It’s said it was looking out for customers when it was only one way.
What happened wasn’t free market.
Again I am staunchly against Senator Liz Warren but what happened this week has me and plenty of others not on her side saying blow up Wall Street with regulation.

I don’t believe Wall Street is free trade anymore.
This is where the nuance of what is being asked and answered is important and, more importantly, the messaging.

If Vlad responds positively to the liquidity issue question, "Robinhood in liquidity crisis" becomes the headline and, for RH, it could be 2008 redux.

By responding negatively to the liquidity question but saying they had to meet financial obligations imposed upon them, they avoid that headline.

I don't blame him. I would rather be a villain in the media than out of business and shut down.

The reality is that it was 100% a liquidity issue. RH had to go out and raise 1 BN of capital OVERNIGHT from their investors PLUS draw down on all their credit lines in order to meet the new DTCC collateral requirements. That is 100% the definition of a liquidity crisis.

The reason RH did not freeze selling is that selling reduces the collateral requirement.

Regarding the looking out for customers statement, I am out of my depth in terms of its veracity.

Had RH not been able to meet its collateral requirements and been forced to shut down, I am pretty sure that all RH accounts would have been frozen and that investors would not have had access to their accounts.

What I don't know is to what extent investor assets are ring-fenced in a situation like that. For example, fully paid for assets probably are. But if margined assets are held in street name, rather than in the investors name, do they then become part of the assets of the firm that are used to satisfy creditors? I do not know. And I don't think RH customers would want to find out.

RH having to shut down would not have been good for anybody. I don't believe for a minute that RH was solely looking out for its customers. RH did what it did to stay in business. I have a strong suspicion that doing what it did to stay in business was ultimately also in the best interests of its customers based upon what I elucidate above.

Actually, what this demonstrates is that the elimination of commissions has made the market more accessible than ever and that the retail investor can now be a force in a way that they never were before. Up until last week, the retail investor has always been irrelevant. Last week proves that is no longer the case.
 
For all of you like me who’s interested in what’s going on, but does not dabble or have much knowledge at all about this world... this has been floating around Twitter the last couple of days. Helped me get a better grasp on what’s happening (in simple layman’s terms)
 
If my math is right, you put at least 203k into a stock most analysts believe will go bankrupt sooner than later... You are a braver investor than me.

But... Good job!
I'm not sure I agree with this.

He says he own cash-secured puts against covered calls. I am not 100% sure what a cash-secured put is but I will assume that it means he is long a fully paid-for put (if I am wrong about this, then the rest of this post becomes irrelevant).

So, if he is long a put and is long a covered call (ie. long stock, short call), then he is long put, long stock, short call.

From put-call parity, it really means he is long a riskless asset (ie. cash). If the skew is inverted (which I understand it has been for stocks like Gamestop due to all the retail call buying), then there is some juice in the inverted skew.

How have you come to the conclusion that he is long 203K of stock from his post?
 
Oprah? She's probably the only billionaire who doesn't have a "controversy" section on their Wikipedia page.

I thought she had a penchant for closing department stores to the public and going on private sprees, or something like that. Hardly amounts to rape or pyramid schemes, though.
 
Ok I am a newbie with stocks. I have a few like Apple, Microsoft, Coke, Disney that I just have had forever and don't really think about it too much. Was thinking would be nice to get in this last week, but figured it would be my luck to put in a few G's and have Gamestop tank like it did yesterday. Is it worth it to day trade and find the next reddit thread, or just ride out long haul stocks?

If your goal is long-term/retirement income, you could do what millions have always done, but nobody here seems to - focus on income, rather than the "nest egg." There are very safe companies that pay dividends, and some raise them every year at a pace that exceeds annual inflation. Some Canadian banks have been paying dividends, uninterrupted, for over 100 years.

The key is to reinvest, to get that compounding machine going. Some call it SWAN investing (sleep well at night). No fretting over price drop or crashes - instead, those are buying opportunities, because you're getting a temporarily higher yield on cost, you see. Just keep track of your companies, and both your dividend and (over time) your stock prices will gain, too.

Don't get greedy and chase very high yields, but some high yielders are pretty safe. AT&T is around 7.2%, and they are paying down some of their huge debt. Apple would have been great several years ago for me, when they were yielding 2.6%. They have hiked that dividend 6 to 14 % a year or so, so it would be yielding about 5% a year now, and rising.

My faves? REIT (STOR, WPC,O), pharm (JNJ, BMS, PFE, ABBV), Canadian banks (TD, BMO, BNS), data (IRM), consumer (VFC, PEP, SNA, SBUX PG), various finance (MAIN, BEN, AFL, PRU, TROW), energy (SO), European exposure (NOK, UL), and so forth.

Some focus on dividend growth more (I would if I was younger). Others want to ride Tesla and AMD and Shopify and Amazon up some more. Not for me, but I won't lie and say I don't look for the next big one now and then, heh.
 
If your goal is long-term/retirement income, you could do what millions have always done, but nobody here seems to - focus on income, rather than the "nest egg." There are very safe companies that pay dividends, and some raise them every year at a pace that exceeds annual inflation. Some Canadian banks have been paying dividends, uninterrupted, for over 100 years.

The key is to reinvest, to get that compounding machine going. Some call it SWAN investing (sleep well at night). No fretting over price drop or crashes - instead, those are buying opportunities, because you're getting a temporarily higher yield on cost, you see. Just keep track of your companies, and both your dividend and (over time) your stock prices will gain, too.

Don't get greedy and chase very high yields, but some high yielders are pretty safe. AT&T is around 7.2%, and they are paying down some of their huge debt. Apple would have been great several years ago for me, when they were yielding 2.6%. They have hiked that dividend 6 to 14 % a year or so, so it would be yielding about 5% a year now, and rising.

My faves? REIT (STOR, WPC,O), pharm (JNJ, BMS, PFE, ABBV), Canadian banks (TD, BMO, BNS), data (IRM), consumer (VFC, PEP, SNA, SBUX PG), various finance (MAIN, BEN, AFL, PRU, TROW), energy (SO), European exposure (NOK, UL), and so forth.

Some focus on dividend growth more (I would if I was younger). Others want to ride Tesla and AMD and Shopify and Amazon up some more. Not for me, but I won't lie and say I don't look for the next big one now and then, heh.
In a word, stonks.
 
This is where the nuance of what is being asked and answered is important and, more importantly, the messaging.

If Vlad responds positively to the liquidity issue question, "Robinhood in liquidity crisis" becomes the headline and, for RH, it could be 2008 redux.

By responding negatively to the liquidity question but saying they had to meet financial obligations imposed upon them, they avoid that headline.

I don't blame him. I would rather be a villain in the media than out of business and shut down.

The reality is that it was 100% a liquidity issue. RH had to go out and raise 1 BN of capital OVERNIGHT from their investors PLUS draw down on all their credit lines in order to meet the new DTCC collateral requirements. That is 100% the definition of a liquidity crisis.

The reason RH did not freeze selling is that selling reduces the collateral requirement.

Regarding the looking out for customers statement, I am out of my depth in terms of its veracity.

Had RH not been able to meet its collateral requirements and been forced to shut down, I am pretty sure that all RH accounts would have been frozen and that investors would not have had access to their accounts.

What I don't know is to what extent investor assets are ring-fenced in a situation like that. For example, fully paid for assets probably are. But if margined assets are held in street name, rather than in the investors name, do they then become part of the assets of the firm that are used to satisfy creditors? I do not know. And I don't think RH customers would want to find out.

I think (emphasis on think) that none of the customer assets, even margin ones, can be used as collateral. So whatever the dollar amount RH needs to post to satisfy the clearing brokers, it has to be totally separate from any of the customer assets, margin or not. Again. I think.

Also wanted to say. I know RH is the headliner here, but they werent the only brokerage to restrict trading in some of the meme stocks
 

Forum statistics

Threads
169,397
Messages
4,830,127
Members
5,974
Latest member
sturner5150

Online statistics

Members online
239
Guests online
2,112
Total visitors
2,351


...
Top Bottom