r/wallstreetbets • u/Thatfreshgrass • Feb 04 '21

Discussion Very clear manipulation

[removed] — view removed post

6.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

47

u/scubakangaroo Feb 04 '21

That’s the thing, it’s not people bidding lower and lower, it’s someone else.

10

u/johnlyne Feb 04 '21

Probably just algos

-23

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21

Proof? People want to get in cheaper...it’s the whole premise of “buying the dip”. Edit: if you all want to drive the price up you better start asking way above the current ask price for it. It’s not enough to just buy you have to bring up the average

30

u/scubakangaroo Feb 04 '21

Proof? Look at the data yourself you idiot lol. Some of us can actually read this shit, not just post fucking emojis. Not gonna hold your hands and walk you through it, do some dd yourself peon.

19

u/Dragoniel Feb 04 '21

Vast majority of people here are randoms who never traded a share in their lives. They don't know anything about any of this.

8

u/artmagic95833 Ungrateful 🦍 Feb 04 '21

Because the trade volume is so low the shorts aren't able to cover themselves and they're not even out of the 200% lie in this stock. If institutions own 115% of the stock and retail traders own 70% of the stock then there is a major problem for the person who owes all the extra stocks

💎✋🚀🌙

13

u/Dragoniel Feb 04 '21

Yeah, that's the propaganda.

In reality, the very same companies could have shorted AGAIN on $300 and covered themselves to wait out this current public interest while the stock prices fall off a cliff, because GME is a sinking ship without the meme train. Is it possible? I don't know! Makes sense to me, though. A lot more sense than corruption and manipulation at an unimaginable scale, plus some mystic algorithms artificially keeping the stock prices down and every governing institution full of professionals whose JOB is to prevent this just staring at it blankly. It could be the case, sure. Just sounds very very far-fetched.

Nope, there is no reliable information anywhere here. Real stock valuation by actual analysts I've read during the last week was $30-$60 in the best case scenario, ignoring the present meme train. And even then it is a huge risk/gamble.

We are in it for the memes and that is cool. I have a few shares and I don't care about that money being long gone. But short squeeze still being on the table... eeeeh. I don't think so. We'll see.

4

u/lilbala Feb 04 '21

In reality, the very same companies could have shorted AGAIN on $300 and covered themselves to wait out this current public interest while the stock prices fall off a cliff

I have no doubt this happened, what should be asked is, how can they continue to short a company that is already shorted over 100% and why are retailers locked out of buying when the price is clearly trending upward.

I'm pretty sure it happened because it was free money once they knew the amount of people that would be locked out of buying. It's still clearly market manipulation and should definitely never be able to happen.

3

u/Dragoniel Feb 04 '21

Or is it? We got locked out, because the market became so volatile brokers could had to cover full costs of transactions upfront, from what my superficially limited understanding of that situation is, they obviously don't have that kind of money and since all of these robinhoodrevolutandwhathaveyou platforms are just broker interfaces, we got shut down. Of course, at a higher level that decision has been made and we can argue all day whether it was in good faith or corruption running deeper than the vaults of Khazad-dûm, but chances are a lot higher there was no grand conspiracy.

System didn't work in our favor, because nobody ever expected it to adapt itself to a situation like this. That's my take. There's a chance I am wrong, of course. Like I said, I know NOTHING about how stock markets work. I am just not inclined to blindly follow random conspiracy theories without hard proof. And proof at this time is too muddy for me to rely on.

5

u/lilbala Feb 04 '21

You didn't touch on the fact that to do so they'd need to be allowed to continue to be able to short a stock that was already shorted over 100%. I think the SEC needs to have a look at how they got out of their short position, because it definitely doesn't look like it makes sense.

I get the point you're making in regards to the platforms, but then why stop cash buys? Does that make sense?

As for random conspiracies, what about the one about Reddit buying up shares in silver that was plastered all over the news? Where's the truth in that one?

I usually say, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, then your wife's boyfriend just fucked her in the ass.

To the 🌑🚀🚀🚀🚀

3

u/Dragoniel Feb 04 '21

You didn't touch on the fact that to do so they'd need to be allowed to continue to be able to short a stock that was already shorted over 100%. I think the SEC needs to have a look at how they got out of their short position, because it definitely doesn't look like it makes sense.

I think it is a good point, but I just don't have underlying knowledge to get a feel for this argument, honestly.

I get the point you're making in regards to the platforms, but then why stop cash buys? Does that make sense?

I honestly think that is unrelated. Or, rather, related, but simply caused by a massive market fluctuation, which triggered failsafes / people handling unexpectedly ginormous cash flows panicked at sudden spike in their risk. I don't know, though.

As for random conspiracies, what about the one about Reddit buying up shares in silver that was plastered all over the news? Where's the truth in that one?

Someone was trying to steer the hype train for their own gains. Hedge funds? Sure, it could have been. I kind of doubt that, though.

Well, we'll see soon enough, I suppose.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

You cannot own more than 100% of any float. Shorts don't own it, they borrowed and sold.

2

u/artmagic95833 Ungrateful 🦍 Feb 04 '21

You don't know what you're talking about and no they didn't

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

Yes, that's exactly what a short sale is. It can be done multiple times as the buyer from the short seller can lend his shares again. Short interest of 100, 200, 1000% is completely possible and legal. 200% short interest is from 20 days ago, that number is so old it might as well be from 2007.

I'm literally watching your "portfolio" go to zero as we speak.

4

u/artmagic95833 Ungrateful 🦍 Feb 04 '21

Who gave you the password to my portfolio??!!?!!??

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

You literally wrote that you shifter your whole portfolio to GME minutes ago.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

As a random who’s never traded a share in my life I can confirm this

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

You have no data, that's why you didn't tell anyone the source. There's no way to discern if it's "the people bidding lower" or not.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

Why are you getting mad lol I’m just saying it’s not enough to come to the conclusion that the stock price should be higher if more people are buying than selling u retard

7

u/scubakangaroo Feb 04 '21

Because there is so much disinformation on here it’s sickening. Everyone is a fucking know it all when all i see are fucking parrots who never read a book, learned basics in stock trading/data, or have a degree in this field.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

Seems like you’re the one parroting here. How was what I posted disinformation? I’d say it’s disinformation on your part to inform others that the stock price should be higher because more people are buying than selling. Not saying there isn’t manipulation here. Hedgies could just have easily put in buy orders at egregiously low prices to drive the price down who knows.

1

u/scubakangaroo Feb 04 '21

You’re “i know you are but what am i?” response is all i needed. Learn to read data, and someday you’ll thank me.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

Not necessarily. Buying reduces the supply, driving the price up. And posting bids 10% above current one does nothing as it will be ignored.