Why Did Reddit Trigger a GameStop Stock Surge?

[kyphysics]

$87 LOL

 

[InkTide]

$87 LOL

This guy quite literally follows the daily trading trends of GME specifically, if you want something to listen to to tell you the minute-by-minute price actions from the perspective of a professional day trader (he does a lot of options trading).

 

[InkTide]

Note, the SEC says there was no naked shorting:

This (specifically section 3) raises significant issues with the SEC report, including simple term definition errors (like accidentally replacing the word "volume" with "value" for volume-weighted average price - there is no such thing as "value weighted average price").

Here's a video going over a 2016 SEC report describing the ways naked shorting is suspected to be hidden using ETFs. Note the SEC report on GameStop specifically identifies the GME ticker and not the 106 ETF tickers that contain GME shares.

 

[kyphysics]

This guy quite literally follows the daily trading trends of GME specifically, if you want something to listen to to tell you the minute-by-minute price actions from the perspective of a professional day trader (he does a lot of options trading).

Nah. I just like watching the "low of the day" price action. I'd have to be nuts to follow it on a play-by-play level.

I mean...mayyyyyybe if I owned the stock...even then, I'd probably not follow price action that closely. I'm mostly a value investor, so I don't care what happens to the price over the next 3-5 years. I just buy and hold. If it goes down, I buy more...traders fret every second...I fret every 3-5 years.

 

[InkTide]

Nah. I just like watching the "low of the day" price action. I'd have to be nuts to follow it on a play-by-play level.

I mean...mayyyyyybe if I owned the stock...even then, I'd probably not follow price action that closely. I'm mostly a value investor, so I don't care what happens to the price over the next 3-5 years. I just buy and hold. If it goes down, I buy more...traders fret every second...I fret every 3-5 years.

That's actually pretty close to verbatim the position of people investing in GME - "buy, hold, directly register to pull the share from DTCC circulation." They just happen to be following price action as well.

The only price actions they change positions to are drops, which they respond to by buying more - that's why I think this is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy even absent the ample evidence that the price has been manipulated. Anyone with short interest above 0 is up against a contingent of retail GME value investors that are dead-set on buying and holding every single GME share in existence to make covering the short impossible, and never selling unless and until a short squeeze happens.

Also, holding for a long time means you may want to consider figuring out who the transfer agent of the related security is, to prevent your own shares from being lent out for legal short selling (how short selling is supposed to work - though personally I still consider it a flaw in market structure even in its legalized form).

 

[kyphysics]

 

[gleem]

Well maybe the "little guy" inflicted some pain on some pro's but according to the WSJ the pro's raked in the dough.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...the-gamestop-revolution/ar-AATgc4A?li=BBnb7Kz

One should always remember, "You should not get into a micturating contest with a skunk."

 

[Astronuc]

Somewhat related to the Reddit influence on short sellers

How a Columbia professor became the scourge of activist short sellers​

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/columbia-professor-became-scourge-activist-100856402.html

 

[bhobba]

Somewhat related to the Reddit influence on short sellers

Now I am learning about options from professionals (I joined SMB Options Tribe, which has a lot of professional options traders and is run by the head options trader at SMB Capital); you realize the whole thing is simply mad - even madder than I thought before. All you have to do is buy an in the money put. Options are just contracts - it has zero effect on the stock itself. You also learn about LEAPS which are options that act the same as shares (except you do not get dividends) but at a much lower price. Trading options usually takes about 15 minutes a day - if that. It can be as low as a minute a week. There is a minority of options traders that use options for day trading. I think they are mad, stressed out and will burn out early. But each to their own I suppose. SMB has many day/swing traders, and very very few can make big money. Most 'just' make a good 6 figure income - maybe double what I got in today's dollars working as a programmer for the government or what contractors not attracted by the security of government work get. The superstars are very few, and SMB is always on the lookout for them. They even offered me a tryout. I laughed my head off - and politely said no. Although it is all part of their business model which is interesting but way off-topic.

Note that some options traders are not exactly Lilly white. There is the story of Karen - the so called Super Trader:

https://investormint.com/investing/how-karen-the-supertrader-blew-up

All the strategies she uses are well known and legit. I use one myself called an Iron Condor with profits taken at 25%. It lasts on average 22 days and wins 92% of the time with a profit of $274. But that 8% loss really hurts - it is $1347 each loss. To mitigate that a bit before it expires you have a look at if it is in loss or close to it. If so it is easy to convert to what is called an Iron Butterfly which at a 1% profit target is $15 profitable 92% of the time - but the losing trades only lose $73. So overall you only have a 3% chance of a loss of $73 and an average profit, without doing the exact calculation of about $250 in around 22 days. These are typical profits that can be made with strategies options traders use - not the massive profits Kathy made which should have been a red flag something was wrong.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StevieTNZ]

Now I am learning about options from professionals (I joined SMB Options Tribe, which has a lot of professional options traders and is run by the head options trader at SMB Capital); you realize the whole thing is simply mad - even madder than I thought before.

Have you made enough money in order to buy me Updown Court -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Updown_Court ?

 

[bhobba]

Have you made enough money in order to buy me Updown Court -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Updown_Court ?

Seriously though anybody that claims they can quickly get that sort of money from options is either pulling your leg or lying. When you start about 20% is possible. That's my level right now. After years of experience you can make the returns of this guy:

https://real-pl.com/

To cut to the chase it is about 3.9% a month or about 60% a year. You may think - wow that's great - I should do it. Well, I think all advanced investors should (Warren Buffett does it all the time) but let's be clear about the actual profits being made here. YOU MUST PAY TAX. Buy and hold you do not. Here in Aus the maximum tax rate is 45% - so this is equivalent to 33% buy and hold. Well, you think - that pretty hard to do. Have a look at the Hedgefunge passive portfolio:



Things are not always what they seem in the whacky world of investing. I could say more but this forum is not really about investing, although a discussion of Mathematical Finance such as the math of options etc would be on-topic. I may do post/paper on it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[BWV]

Short vol strategies like the iron condor are like picking up pennies in front of a steamroller - you can make consistent, seemingly above market returns but the gamma risk can wipe you out if vol spikes like it did in 2018’s volmageddon or in March 20. If everyone could make 20% per year trading options, then why don’t they? More importantly, who are the suckers on the other side of the trade willing to give you these sort of returns? You really think you can win in a zero sum competition against professional traders/algos over the long term as a part time dilettante?

 

[jrmichler]

Back in the 1980's, I studied option strategies. I convinced myself that a conservative low risk approach would give me returns comparable to CD's, but at higher risk. I have not touched options since then.

 

[bhobba]

If everyone could make 20% per year trading options, then why don’t they?

Well, Warren Buffett does them all the time. Once you learn about puts and picking shares up at bargain prices many people indeed buy shares using puts. The reason most do not emulate Warren Buffett is simply the average investor doesn't know about it. And even if they did many couldn't be bothered. An Iron Condor is a defined risk strategy - you can't lose more than your margin which is, for that trade on the index, about $1500 - and what you mention occurs very rarely.

There are plenty of people that trade options quite profitably - not massive amounts of money unless you have a big bank - but it is not hard to do OK. And as you get more experience 60% is not out of the question. It is not done with an Iron Condor though. They are beginner strategies. A better strategy that works regardless of market direction is a delta neutral Broken Wing Iron Butterfly. An example is the following on the S&P index. Sell a 20 delta put and a call at the same price. Go 50 points down from that price and buy a put. Buy a call above that price so the trade is delta neutral. You take profits at about 1%-1.5% of the premium. You see how it works as you step through each day looking at the t+0, t+1, t+2 etc lines. It initially starts out narrow and flat, but after each day it gets slightly less wide but higher. It does not take much for the profit to be a small amount like 1% or 1.5%. It has over a 90% win rate from my backtesting and the backtesting of its inventor. He also has traded it for 5 years confirming its profitability. It returns about $50 on $500 dollar margin. He has a better trade, but I can't reveal its details except again my and the inventors backtesting over the last 10 years plus his trading it for 5 years confirms it is profitable. Have a look at the real profit and loss in the link I gave where the details of his account balances are given. The trade is called the 5 step.

A popular trade invented by Seth Freudberg whose overall strategy can be revealed is the so-called Rhino:
https://www.smbtraining.com/blog/rhino

Here is the profit and loss:
https://www.smbtraining.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SMB-Rhino-Backtest.pdf

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Back in the 1980's, I studied option strategies. I convinced myself that a conservative low risk approach would give me returns comparable to CD's, but at higher risk. I have not touched options since then.

I gave it my like. Many people in retirement use covered calls on shares they own at 10% delta, which rarely gets assigned. If it does, they have made a big profit on a stock they will likely eventually sell anyway since they are retired. Some don't want to sell and buy back the call for a loss. A test ran using it with $250k on SPY shares to create income to live off showed to make it work; you would need to reinvest 50% of profits and occasionally make use of margin:

It is debatable if it performs better than the 4% rule unless you are willing to take on more risk. It certainly is not set and forget.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

GameStop shares soar 30% and take other meme stocks on a ride, after Reddit poster touts shares at a ‘58.2%’ discount​

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/48583f41-b547-3c50-abda-daaa64293325/gamestop-shares-soar-30-and.html

Meanwhile, 55 minutes before markets close -

GME GameStop Corp.

$136.43

-$4.57

-3.24%

 

[bhobba]

Will people never learn? Simply dollar cost average into a good ETF for buy and hold investing. It is very tax-efficient even if you do not do it out of some tax-advantaged vehicle since you never sell. I like NTSX because it let's you get a traditional 60/40 portfolio at 2/3 the cost:


If you get the urge to trade, do it with options. If you want to buy a share, you can do it with LEAPS at half or less than the price of purchasing the shares. You can even sell covered calls over them - your broker recognises LEAPS means you effectively own the shares. Sell short - buy an in the money put instead. Plus many, many other strategies are available. As I said before, once you know about options - forget actual trading shares. Only a very few can make decent money at it anyway. A study of 40,000 day-traders showed only a few made money - and most of the time, it was not much. Only a handful made a good living. Options traders are another matter - there are very low-risk strategies, e.g. covered calls at ten delta that even retirees use. If it is worthwhile is another matter, as has been discussed in previous posts. For the more adventurous, there are strategies like the Rhino:
https://www.smbtraining.com/blog/rhino

I don't trade it. Even though it is reasonably hands off it still needs adjustments. I prefer trades with no, or virtually no, adjustments.

The only explanation I have is hope spings eternal - even amongst professionals who should know better. Full disclosure - I am an Options Tribe member so I am likely biased.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StevieTNZ]

Will people never learn? Simply dollar cost average into a good ETF for buy and hold investing. It is very tax-efficient even if you do not do it out of some tax-advantaged vehicle since you never sell. I like NTSX because it let's you get a traditional 60/40 portfolio at 2/3 the cost:

Have you made some money from what you have currently traded? I guess it is nice to have that extra dosh in retirement.

 

[bhobba]

Have you made some money from what you have currently traded? I guess it is nice to have that extra dosh in retirement.

If you watch the start of the options tribe video, it is emphasized, as is always done in every meeting, you first paper trade any strategy for at least four months, preferably longer. Then you trade in small lots. And slowly increase as you get more experience and it is profitable. As for the ETF Dollar Cost Averaging - yes, I have made money on that - not much, but it is profitable. It is a long-term tax-efficient strategy, so I suggest it as the foundation of your options trading. NTFS is perfect because you get the traditional 60/40 portfolio at 2/3 the price. If purchased in an options trading account, you only lose 1/2 the cost of the shares in reducing your option buying power. Say you have $15,000, you would invest $10,000 in NTFS and effectively have your $15k in a 60/40 portfolio but $10k to use as margin for options trading. You do not have to use it for options trading; you can invest in something like Berkshire Hathaway class B shares which have performed very well as you would expect from Warren Buffett. Dollar-cost average into it, and slowly start trading options in small amounts as you feel more confident. With options slow and steady wins the race.

Under no circumstances trade the Rhino or any other advanced strategy until you have had significant experience. You likely would not be able to do it anyway because you need to know concepts like rolling down and calendar spread.

I only mention this in regard to this thread because professional proprietary trading firms that know what they are doing don't actually short shares (or only rarely do it) and do not run into issues like the short squeeze. It still amazes me it happened. They use options - at least SMB does - even their day traders.

Thanks
Bill

 

[kyphysics]

In all seriousness, what is the future of GameStop's retail business?

Retail is considered the most brutal business on Earth by some:

i.) fixed costs + uncertain revenue & net income (might have to go into debt to survive rough patches)
ii.) low barrier to entry (thus lots of competition)
iii.) Amazon hunting you down
iv.) fluctuating consumer tastes (means your products or services can go out-of-style and you have to constantly keep up with the times)
v.) lots of employee turnover (the second Joe Smith gets a job paying higher than $7.25-min. wage, he's gone)

Yes, GameStop has a niche business with a brand, but it's basic value premise is still lacking as consumers can just download games and never enter a brick and mortar store. Best Buy offers gaming consoles and some games (probably not as much as GameStop), but with a diversified retail business that can draw in customers for other purposes and have them simultaneously "convenience shop" for their gaming needs/wants. Same with other retail stores. ...GameStop is just literally a single concept store with its core product easily downloadable.

Additionally, they're at the mercy of big games makers releasing to them (using them as a middle-man) in a way that may be like Foot Locker being at the mercy of Nike. Foot Locker's stock crashed recently when Nike allegedly broke news it may have its own distribution centers/stores. Foot Locker could always release its own signature brands, but...GOOD LUCK with that. ...GameStop feels like it could also always be at the mercy of big games makers in the same way. It's not like GameStop has a game designing department and can release their own stuff. They have no pricing power either. They are just single-concept niche store middle-men in an increasingly digitally dominant sector within an equally bad and brutal retail space.

RIP
~500,000M debt
negative net income (i.e., they are losing money) last few quarters
market cap of $11B *mmmm hmmm...makes total sense*

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is very tax-efficient

It's probably worth pointing out that you're in Australia and other countries may be more or less so.

If you get the urge to trade, do it with options. If you want to buy a share, you can do it with LEAPS at half or less than the price of purchasing the shares.

What you are saying here is that LEAPS provide a lot of leverage. They do. But leverage works in both directions: gains and losses. Leverage is not for everyone.

One thing that I find scary about this thread is that it's clear many people are investing without goals. As they say, "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

 

[bhobba]

It's probably worth pointing out that you're in Australia and other countries may be more or less so.

It is worth pointing out. I do not know the details of complex Australian tax law, except in general terms. The US, obviously, even more so. That knowledge is enough for me to leave it to my accountant. Financial advisors are worse than a waste of money IMHO; they hurt your returns. The Royal Commission held into them here in Australia showed what they did was close to criminal. Stay clear is my advice. Accountants are another matter. Tax codes are generally so complex you need professional advice. Having a good relationship with one is very important. I see mine at least once a year. Since starting trading, it will be even more critical. For example, it is generally thought in Australia, unless you are a high wealth individual, you do not set up a Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF). My accountant showed me the very cheap ways to set one up (it costs about $199), and providing your investing is simple; his fees are not much. You calculate the fees you pay for a retail superannuation fund and do it when it is more than the cost of setting an SMSF up. The amount was MUCH smaller than I thought (about $50,000 if I remember correctly - generally, people think you need millions). I am very positive about good accountants' advice.

What you are saying here is that LEAPS provide a lot of leverage. They do. But leverage works in both directions: gains and losses. Leverage is not for everyone.

Yes. For most people, dollar-cost averaging into a low-cost growth ETF (or ETFs) is not only all that needs to be done; it will beat the vast majority of those that actively trade. You must have a reason to actively invest and realize the odds of beating passive long term investing is not good. You do it because you think you know enough to beat the odds. I think I can - but we will see if it is all hubris. Besides, I am only doing it with at most 1/3 of what I invest.

One thing that I find scary about this thread is that it's clear many people are investing without goals. As they say, "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

Hmmm. Many do not. I know my goal in taking investing/trading up again after a hiatus. I am financially independent, but the recent experience I had with spending $22k on fixing termite damage made me realize you need to be more than economically independent. You need to be able to weather 'storms' that will inevitably occur without it causing friction in your 'family'. I, and my sister, have more than enough money to cope with this, but it was not a harmonious time. I want to be in a position where when similar things happen, money is not an issue that will cause problems. I also want to leave money to secure my niece's future when I die. Without going into details, they are doing it tough because of health issues.

Thanks
Bill

 

[kyphysics]

Is this funny...sad...wise...or what?

GameStop's meme stock cousin, AMC, is investing in the gold mining space.

 

[InkTide]

i.) fixed costs + uncertain revenue & net income (might have to go into debt to survive rough patches)

This describes all businesses.

ii.) low barrier to entry (thus lots of competition)

This is just untrue, in large part because:

iii.) Amazon hunting you down

You can replace "Amazon" with "large competitor"; anti-monopoly laws are sitting unused and forgotten about. As such, one of the most common avenues of expansion is monopolistic accumulation of anything even suggesting it might become a competitor.

iv.) fluctuating consumer tastes (means your products or services can go out-of-style and you have to constantly keep up with the times)

This applies to all businesses.

v.) lots of employee turnover (the second Joe Smith gets a job paying higher than $7.25-min. wage, he's gone)

This is dependent on internal structure, culture, what the actual wage is, etc. One of the worst examples of high turnover/pathetic retention in the retail space is literally:

Best Buy

... in large part because they have been attempting to turn all their employees into salesmen for Best Buy's garbage "repair subscription service".

GameStop is just literally a single concept store with its core product easily downloadable.

It's clear to me that you don't know what GameStop's business model actually is - GameStop is, in essence, a direct competitor to BestBuy in the consumer electronics space. You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow an exclusively game disk/physical game merchandise vendor, when in reality it's much more like RadioShack or a physical version of Newegg. The death of RadioShack and the continually unraveling reputation of Newegg are direct boons to the core retail business of GameStop.

It's not like GameStop has a game designing department and can release their own stuff.

They are expanding significantly into the digital space, have been for the last year at least.

~500,000M debt

No, GameStop is not $500 billion in debt. I'm going to assume you meant $50 million in long term debt (it's actually $41 million as of their last quarterly report).

This conveniently doesn't mention that they paid off over a billion in long term debt over the last 2 years, and own enough of their existing logistical network to be opening a new hub for it. Part of the benefit of being a chain retailer the size of GameStop is access to a large network of dedicated transportation for stocking each branch of your business - the barrier to entry for a single store is middling (mostly to do with the current real estate market), the barrier to entry for creation of a viable chain of businesses is enormous. Individual retailers are so disadvantaged that they usually aren't even considered business competitors to chain businesses, just local competitors of individual branches.

negative net income (i.e., they are losing money) last few quarters

Paying off debt, expansion of the business, and restructuring internally will do that, yeah. They've been focused on increasing sales and beat expectations last quarter (net sales was $2.2 billion - for context, the net income for the quarter was -$148 million) because they are currently operating in the context of their digital ventures being constructed but not contributing to net income (the effect likely won't be known until the Q3 2022 report, as it's scheduled to launch in Q2 2022). They managed this in spite of the wobbly status of overall economic trends (the real estate market is widely thought to be in a bubble and war in Ukraine is threatening a significant portion of internationally traded food - stuff seems rather precariously trying to avoid a downturn, but nobody really knows if it ultimately will).

GameStop's meme stock cousin, AMC, is investing in the gold mining space.

AMC has completely different market circumstances, significantly more long term debt (to the tune of about $5.4 billion), and a business model that is threatened by both physical retail (DVDs) and digital sales (downloads/streaming). Investing in raw materials mining is actually a pretty good way to hedge operating expenses; the common parlance is "diversification", and mining investment is a bit like agricultural investment - fluctuating supply but reliable demand. In that sense, GameStop's entrance into the digital space with a marketplace for NFTs and cryptocurrencies is quite similar as a diversification strategy - whether either will work remains to be seen, but the post-earnings performance of GameStop's stock is, assuming it actually reflects market sentiment, an endorsement.

If it doesn't reflect market sentiment, then the price manipulation narrative is at least to some extent correct, and the current price action may be approaching a squeeze. The increasing difficulty of borrowing GME shares, high volume currently, and consistently high utilization are suggestive of this.

 

[kyphysics]

Yes and no. It's complicated.

Not all businesses have high fixed costs, nor high variable income - at least, not in the same way as simple concept retail. Key word: high

Subscription/membership businesses like Costco (general/wholesale store) and Planet Fitness (gym) or long-term contract businesses, such as property managers and utility-like service providers (Verizon residential phone/internet, for example) have very stable income. Yes, one can argue they might lose a giant portion of that over time, but it's not a month-to-month sort of thing or even a three or four month type of thing.

Likewise, not every business has equally high fixed costs. When I worked at AMC Theaters in high school, my supervisor said there were lots of dumb aspects of the business. Whether a movie showing had literally just 1 customer or a fully packed 280 person seated theater, they still had to pay a licensing fee to the studio to show the film, turn on the projector, turn on the lights, and warm/cool the theater room. It's a huge space to have to "pay for" during slow periods or even zero person showings. On a super slow day, you might have lots of 0-person, 1-person, or 2-person audiences for showings. There is still the same fixed cost to run that movie. You can't tell Disney you're sorry that no one showed up and that you don't want to pay them a licensing fee or tell the lone customer to leave and come back for a more packed showing so you can shut the theater room down.

Some online math tutor, on the other hand, probably has much lower overhead and can even just Zoom chat with you. No major monthly recurring big fixed costs. I guess it's all relative. Yes, everyone has SOME fixed costs.

 

[kyphysics]

So...

I popped into my local GameStop. There were two customers. Both were grown ups in their 30's...40's. Men.

One was asking for some item for his kid...the other was a grown adult gaming fan.

Gamestop has LOTS of toys/collectibles. That part is probably unique.

Otherwise the games, consoles, and accessories can probably be bought elsewhere (brick/mortar - like Best Buy) or online. Nothing special about them that I could see.

I reiterate. They are like Foot Locker in that sense.

 

[kyphysics]

This describes all businesses.

This is just untrue, in large part because:

You can replace "Amazon" with "large competitor"; anti-monopoly laws are sitting unused and forgotten about. As such, one of the most common avenues of expansion is monopolistic accumulation of anything even suggesting it might become a competitor.

This applies to all businesses.

It's late and I'm bored/procrastinating...so I'll entertain these thoughts more.

I don't think retail has a very high barrier to entry. Mostly, you're just selling stuff you buy from wholesale as a localized convenience to people. I'd say a high barrier to entry business is something like becoming a medical doctor. On top of needing to have many years of advanced education and training, the AMA strategically limits the amount of people who are admitted to medical school every year to protect the medical market. They DON'T want an oversupply of doctors, as that would endanger the livelihood of current doctors. Of course, it's partially to uphold academic/professional standards as well. This contrasts with the ABA, which has let way more people become lawyers than are needed and with pretty crappy credentials/pedigrees. Some law schools let you in with C-average undergrad grades and/or a crappy LSAT. For a long time, many low-tier law schools have been degree mills for profit. Law, then, is sort of a relatively law barrier to entry field. I think retail is mostly the same on a relative basis.

As for Amazon and monopolies in retail, I don't know. . .Brick and mortar stores not named Walmart (or a hugely successful big box store) don't seem to have that much monopolistic power. They can achieve economies of scale that lower their costs of operation and thwart competition, but this is not at all guaranteed, as you also have diseconomies of scale and "Cournot's dilemma."

Overall, I think selling a products in a brick and mortar retail environment is just much more unstable than, say, being an accountant, teacher, medical doctor, funeral home operator, etc. GameStop is possibly in one of the worst retail niches for reasons mentioned in earlier posts.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Astronuc]

Five Imploding $40 Billion Companies Are Shadows Of What They Were​

https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-...lion-companies-implode-to-a-fraction-of-that/

The largest loss in market value from the all-time high is Amazon (AMZN). Shares of the online retailer shed a remarkable $766 billion in market value from its all-time high on July 13, 2021. That's a 43% drop in market value.

A colleague invested in AMZN recently, right before it dropped again.

Shares of Peloton topped out with a massive $45.4 billion market valuation on Nov. 18, 2021. The stock hit 176.65 on that day as it looked like people would ditch their gyms and workout at home. But now it's the Peloton investors who are sweating and perhaps hoping for a buyout. The company's market value shriveled nearly 90% from the highs to be worth just $4.6 billion now, or 13.83 a share.

GME closed on Friday at $98.39, which is up from previous close of $89.57. Earnings per share is -$5.25
AMC closed on Friday at $11.81, up from its previous close $11.20. On June 2, 2021, it hit a high of $62.55. The one year range is $9.70 - $72.62.

BitCoin was down from its high.

BTC-USD

$29,406.35

-$641.23

-$2.13%

But it's above its low of $26,284 on May 12. It's high on Nov 8, 2021 was $67,582.80.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But...but...stonks only go up!

 

[Astronuc]

Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong had a personal fortune of $13.7 billion as recently as November. That’s now just $2.2 billion.

Ouch!

 

[Vanadium 50]

You know, my lifestyle would be identical if I had a net worth of $2.2B or $13.7B.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You know, my lifestyle would be identical if I had a net worth of $2.2B or $13.7B.

It's easy to say that until you actually have that much money. Only one of them let's you drop a billion dollars on five giant mansions across the country without worrying about the cost.

 

[artis]

It's easy to say that until you actually have that much money. Only one of them let's you drop a billion dollars on five giant mansions across the country without worrying about the cost.

I'd argue that both of them should be used to drop a billion on 5 mansions if not for anything else then for the simple fact that it is wise to invest in stuff that doesn't swing back and forth in value like a leaf in the wind.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'd argue that both of them should be used to drop a billion on 5 mansions if not for anything else then for the simple fact that it is wise to invest in stuff that doesn't swing back and forth in value like a leaf in the wind.

The market for 200 million dollar homes is not large, it seems pretty easy to lose half your investment if demand drops a bit.

 

[phinds]

The market for 200 million dollar homes is not large, it seems pretty easy to lose half your investment if demand drops a bit.

I recall reading a story fairly recently about a super mansion that was sold originally for $250+ million and put on the market for $250 million and ended up selling for "only" $150 million, so yeah.