General Why aren't you dorks talking about gamestonk hilarity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 1
  • Start date Start date
Leigh said:
I kinda buy it. Maybe I'm being naive.

People are betting on markets; FOREX, stocks, commodities, indices etc. The bookies brokers need to be able to cover the bets. If they can't cover, then they legally can't take the bets.
Click to expand...
It's sounds like they were running into SEC regulation issues, not even truly running out of cash, maybe.
 
Leigh said:
I kinda buy it. Maybe I'm being naive.

People are betting on markets; FOREX, stocks, commodities, indices etc. The bookies brokers need to be able to cover the bets. If they can't cover, then they legally can't take the bets.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, except in that case they should be halting all trading, not just selling. Which is part of why I call bullshit.

*Edit: meant to say buying. Its early.
 
Leigh said:
Well, they can easily cover sell trades. They can't cover any more buy trades.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's possible. If you bought a stock at $1 they'll let you sell at $300, and claim to have money to cover that, but don't have money to cover buying st $300 and cashing out at $350?

Does that not make sense to anyone else or am I missing something?
 
CornPop said:
I don't see how that's possible. If you bought a stock at $1 they'll let you sell at $300, and claim to have money to cover that, but don't have money to cover buying st $300 and cashing out at $350?

Does that not make sense to anyone else or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I'm torn, tbh.
 
ThatOneDude said:
Yea but did you study at Yale? No. Were you close? Maybe, in some ways, but I'll never tell.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
CornPop said:
I don't see how that's possible. If you bought a stock at $1 they'll let you sell at $300, and claim to have money to cover that, but don't have money to cover buying st $300 and cashing out at $350?

Does that not make sense to anyone else or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

They are fixing the system.

When you sell, someone is buying. Giving a certain group an option to only SELL is a move to instill panic and tank the stock.

It's one of the most blatantly illegal moves I've ever heard of and it was done publicly - they didn't even attempt to hide it.

They are attempting to protect the hedge funds - or to at least get what they can from them by getting the price down to a reasonable level.

I don't say this as hyperbole - people should go to jail for this.
 
CornPop said:
I don't see how that's possible. If you bought a stock at $1 they'll let you sell at $300, and claim to have money to cover that, but don't have money to cover buying st $300 and cashing out at $350?

Does that not make sense to anyone else or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Trade always requires someone to buy if you want to sell and vice versa. You can't buy anything if no one is selling.

Imagine you're a broker. You get $1M in buy trades and NO sell trades. If price doubles and people cash out, you need to cover $1M. Imagine price goes from $40 to $350, price has increased 9 times!

So you have a load of buy orders and you're struggling to cover them. You need a whole load of sell orders to cover the buy orders. You'll take all the sell orders you can get and that's good for everyone; the guys who have buy orders can get theirs fulfilled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top