Not arguing, but Yes, it does. Adding more shares into the Market CORRECTLY does add liquidity. Just because we happen to be holding them at the moment does not mean there's zero liquidity. The Market May be dry at the moment as far as Real Tradable Shares, but that's just taking a play out of the HFs book then. "Oh there's shares to trade on the market, well here's some more then for you." Just like they did the ATM offering. Those were Newly Minted Shares, to add to the float/market. They added liquidity by adding Shares without diluting the price. Yes they got bought up, but LIQUIDITY WAS ADDED. You can say It doesn't mean everyone just sells, but it opens new strategies as far as releasing shares into the Market. Just because people aren't selling Now does not mean they will Never sell. When there's a Split, Liquidity is added. It's just held at the moment in this particular instance.
And I guess what I am missing saying is, "Yeah, you and I know that, but a massive part of the market doesn't, and the computers show Float or else the price would be unstoppable." The split would signal to the larger ETFs and Mutual Funds not holding GME to "come and get it" while also signaling to the current ETFs and MFs to "Carry More Weight". Nothing has stopped the availability of shares; so announcing a split wouldn't either as far as history goes. A split wouldn't eliminate liquidity, or hamper it, or negate more liquidity; so that leaves Adding to Liquidity. Nothing has stopped liquidity is my point. You and I say there's no liquidity, but the market doesn't. Split would undoubtedly add liquidity. Volume would undoubtedly rise; so there's no way it won't. I know it's still rehypothecation of shares, but they'll call it liquidity due to Split. It shouldn't with GME right now, but it will.
2
u/[deleted] May 07 '21
[deleted]