Darrell Etherington Fri, January 29, 2021, 9:57 AM·2 min read
A view of the Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters May 3, 2013 in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
GME +63.14%
More content below The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued an official statement on the tumult of the past week in the public stock market. It's a relatively brief statement, and doesn't mention any of the key players by name (aka GameStop, Reddit, Robinhood and others), but it does say acknowledge that "extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose investors to rapid and severe losses" which could "undermine market confidence," and basically says the Commission is watching closely to ensure that it doesn't.
The SEC statement does specify that it believes the "core market infrastructure" remains intact despite the heavy trading volumes of the past week, which were prompted primarily by activity organized by retail investors acting in concert through organization on r/WallStreetBets, a subreddit dedicated to day trading. These retail investors resolved to collectively purchase and hold GME stocks (and subsequently, shares in other companies like movie theater chain AMC) in a bid to sweat out hedge funds with significant short positions in the same.
Robinhood raises $1B after trading halts to keep its platform running
The ensuing high volume of trading activity from individual retail investors led to various actions from platforms that provide free trading to these individuals, including Robinhood, Webull, Public and M1. Robinhood initially cited "protecting" its users as the reason for limits imposed, but later revealed that a lack of funding to cover trade clearances likely caused the temporary measures, since it tapped $500 million to $600 million in credit facility and raised $1 billion in funding overnight.
The SEC's statement includes a callout that seems specifically directed at entities like Robinhood, and it's fair to interpret it as a warning:
In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity. Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities.
Robinhood has already had run-ins with the financial regulator for unrelated business practices. Meanwhile, lawmakers from both the House and the Senate, as well as NY AG Letitia James have all expressed their intent to review the event and all surrounding activities, which likely involves the role trading platforms like Robinhood played in the week's events.
Statement of Acting Chair Lee and Commissioners Peirce, Roisman, and Crenshaw Regarding Recent Market Volatility Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee Commissioner Hester M. Peirce Commissioner Elad L. Roisman Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw
Jan. 29, 2021
The Commission is closely monitoring and evaluating the extreme price volatility of certain stocks’ trading prices over the past several days. Our core market infrastructure has proven resilient under the weight of this week’s extraordinary trading volumes. Nevertheless, extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose investors to rapid and severe losses and undermine market confidence.
As always, the Commission will work to protect investors, to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and to facilitate capital formation. The Commission is working closely with our regulatory partners, both across the government and at FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations, including the stock exchanges, to ensure that regulated entities uphold their obligations to protect investors and to identify and pursue potential wrongdoing. The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly inhibit their ability to trade certain securities.
In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity. Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities.
The Commission will continue our work on behalf of investors and the markets. In this regard, we hope to facilitate a robust public dialogue among market participants and investors on the structure and operation of our securities markets. Members of the public can submit tips or complaints through the Commission’s website using this online form. Members of the public with questions should contact the Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at 1-800-732-0330, ask a question using this online form, or email us at [email protected]
Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC. CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin Capital to shore up its finances. Melvin manager Gabe Plotkin told Andrew Ross Sorkin that speculation about a bankruptcy filing is false.
空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点 cover我还信 【 在 lilyamao2 (lilyamao2) 的大作中提到: 】 : CNBC 说券商已经在星期二就suck up loss for 5 billion and closed the deal, 那 : 么是假的还是真的？ : 如果是真的，那么现在不就是多头在踩踏散户，散户还乐呵呵地以为自己在打空头？结 : 果是空头确实被打跑了，现在是散户被带头大哥们在割韭菜？ 因为几个带头大哥账户 : 里可是面值几亿的这种垃圾股，一旦crash掉要打回原形的。 : Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday : afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC. : CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short : position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin : Capital to shore up its finances. : ...................
【 在 lilyamao2 (lilyamao2) 的大作中提到: 】 : CNBC 说券商已经在星期二就suck up loss for 5 billion and closed the deal, 那 : 么是假的还是真的？ : 如果是真的，那么现在不就是多头在踩踏散户，散户还乐呵呵地以为自己在打空头？结 : 果是空头确实被打跑了，现在是散户被带头大哥们在割韭菜？ 因为几个带头大哥账户 : 里可是面值几亿的这种垃圾股，一旦crash掉要打回原形的。 : Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday : afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC. : CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short : position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin : Capital to shore up its finances. : ...................
you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for short ratio to return to 0. there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
显然你的-40P和+50P的两条腿不是在在一单里open、而是在不同时间leg in的——因为options market maker不可能给你这么简单arbitrage的机会，这是常识。这两条腿之 所以最后结果看似无风险，是因为你leg in +50P之后，运气好，股价恰好大幅下跌， 然后你再leg in -40P。如果你leg in +50P之后股价不巧move against you（大幅上涨），你就不再拥有无风险leg in -40P的机会。说白了还是靠运气和market timing。
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】 : you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if : the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true. : consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to : E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return : it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0. : there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% : or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
wow, nice. i just posted a similar version in another thread. but you got it first.
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】 : you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if : the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true. : consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to : E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return : it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0. : there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% : or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
in this example, not only E, but also A and C, can decide to sell their shares at any moment, which will trigger a chain reaction. if A attempts to sell, what will happen for B, C, D, and E, and their brokers?
the higher the short ratio, the more complicated the situation is.
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】 : you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if : the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true. : consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to : E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return : it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0. : there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% : or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】 : you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if : the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true. : consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to : E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return : it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0. : there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% : or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
我感觉，SEC找到Robinhood最核心的问题， 应该是Robinhood等券商提供了过高的杠杆给散户。这些高杠杆资产一旦方向搞错，需要强平，又平不掉，那这些券商就得自己垫钱了。
而券商如果又没有足够的准备金，类似马云的蚂蚁金服，直接玩100倍杠杆，后面可能
哗啦
一下就崩盘。
Robinhood的小散户这几次大的狙击，应该有很多人买的是上杠杆的option，加了氰化钾
的耗子药，毒老鼠的效果那当然是好的。但是，要是老鼠跑了，自己不得不吃，感觉毒发起
来应该也是很快的。小散吃得太多，大量小散毒发身亡的话，Robinhood估计也会一起
搭进去。
这就是为什么Robinhood赶紧连夜筹集资金， 搞了1B来应对。Robinhood内部肯定意识到
这个危险了。
目前为止，小散还是在赢。但是SEC收紧对Robinhood等券商的杠杆管制之后，小散的可用
杠杆就会减少很多，子弹就供应不上啦。子弹供应不上，那还怎么继续进攻？这波攻击估计要
到此为止了，能撤的早点撤吧。
这次的party很接近over了。
这次的事情本质是，贪婪的券商和华尔街，在Fed大量印钱放水，资金成本低的情况下，
再拼命帮散户加杠杆，赚取高息回报，又夹杂reddit社团整合一波散户，对过度short
股票的部分对冲基金发起死亡冲锋的事件。到目前为止，散户是赢的，Melvin等基金被冲垮，Robinhood也是赢的（赚取了大量的高额利息收入），但是散场的踩踏一来，很多
小散会家破人亡，Robinhood搞不好也会被陪葬。
总之，这次GME的party差不多了，早走为妙。
SEC issues statement on past week's turbulent market activity prompted by
Reddit-fueled GameStop run
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-issues-statement-past-weeks-145716254.
html
Darrell Etherington
Fri, January 29, 2021, 9:57 AM·2 min read
A view of the Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters May 3, 2013 in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
GME
+63.14%
More content below
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued an official
statement on the tumult of the past week in the public stock market. It's a relatively brief statement, and doesn't mention any of the key players by
name (aka GameStop, Reddit, Robinhood and others), but it does say
acknowledge that "extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose investors to rapid and severe losses" which could "undermine market
confidence," and basically says the Commission is watching closely to ensure that it doesn't.
The SEC statement does specify that it believes the "core market
infrastructure" remains intact despite the heavy trading volumes of the past week, which were prompted primarily by activity organized by retail
investors acting in concert through organization on r/WallStreetBets, a
subreddit dedicated to day trading. These retail investors resolved to
collectively purchase and hold GME stocks (and subsequently, shares in other companies like movie theater chain AMC) in a bid to sweat out hedge funds
with significant short positions in the same.
Robinhood raises $1B after trading halts to keep its platform running
The ensuing high volume of trading activity from individual retail investors led to various actions from platforms that provide free trading to these
individuals, including Robinhood, Webull, Public and M1. Robinhood initially cited "protecting" its users as the reason for limits imposed, but later
revealed that a lack of funding to cover trade clearances likely caused the temporary measures, since it tapped $500 million to $600 million in credit
facility and raised $1 billion in funding overnight.
The SEC's statement includes a callout that seems specifically directed at
entities like Robinhood, and it's fair to interpret it as a warning:
In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts
demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by
the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity. Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal
securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities.
Robinhood has already had run-ins with the financial regulator for unrelated business practices. Meanwhile, lawmakers from both the House and the Senate, as well as NY AG Letitia James have all expressed their intent to review
the event and all surrounding activities, which likely involves the role
trading platforms like Robinhood played in the week's events.
Statement of Acting Chair Lee and Commissioners Peirce, Roisman, and
Crenshaw Regarding Recent Market Volatility
Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee
Commissioner Hester M. Peirce
Commissioner Elad L. Roisman
Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw
Jan. 29, 2021
The Commission is closely monitoring and evaluating the extreme price
volatility of certain stocks’ trading prices over the past several days.
Our core market infrastructure has proven resilient under the weight of this week’s extraordinary trading volumes. Nevertheless, extreme stock price
volatility has the potential to expose investors to rapid and severe losses and undermine market confidence.
As always, the Commission will work to protect investors, to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and to facilitate capital formation. The
Commission is working closely with our regulatory partners, both across the government and at FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations, including
the stock exchanges, to ensure that regulated entities uphold their
obligations to protect investors and to identify and pursue potential
wrongdoing. The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated
entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly inhibit their
ability to trade certain securities.
In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts
demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by
the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity. Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal
securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities.
The Commission will continue our work on behalf of investors and the markets. In this regard, we hope to facilitate a robust public dialogue among
market participants and investors on the structure and operation of our
securities markets. Members of the public can submit tips or complaints
through the Commission’s website using this online form. Members of the
public with questions should contact the Commission’s Office of Investor
Education and Advocacy at 1-800-732-0330, ask a question using this online
form, or email us at [email protected]
这次的事情，跟2015年中国场外配资崩盘那次有些像。
只不过，这次的美股的事情还没有发展到崩盘的地步。
散户死多头，不停加杠杆做多，一直加，一直赢。
空头被杀得差不多了，股价偏离基本面太多，再也支撑不住后，
多头就要大溃退，比谁跑得快了。
到时会非常难看。
SEC有点担心自己收拾不了局面，正在敦促各方降杠杆，cool
down一下市场而已。
大潮退去，结果发现，大家都在裸泳。
Fed在裸泳，SEC在裸泳，券商在裸泳，对冲基金在裸泳，大户在裸泳，
散户也在裸泳。没有裸泳的人，早就被这帮裸泳的拍死在沙滩上。
大潮退去，这帮裸泳的人又发生踩踏，互相拍。
一切历史都是当代史，人类社会在不停地轮回。
CNBC 说券商已经在星期二就suck up loss for 5 billion and closed the deal, 那
么是假的还是真的？
如果是真的，那么现在不就是多头在踩踏散户，散户还乐呵呵地以为自己在打空头？结果是空头确实被打跑了，现在是散户被带头大哥们在割韭菜？ 因为几个带头大哥账户
里可是面值几亿的这种垃圾股，一旦crash掉要打回原形的。
Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday
afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC.
CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short
position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin
Capital to shore up its finances.
Melvin manager Gabe Plotkin told Andrew Ross Sorkin that speculation about a bankruptcy filing is false.
基金没逃完顶， 这事就还能继续掰扯， 不急不急， 大家各玩各的， 一起happy。
不知道确切的进程，但是，空头一旦跑光，后面就是多杀多，
比谁跑得快了。 GME目前的经营状况根本支撑不了现在的股价。
如果散户没有用杠杆，券商不是大量配资的话，SEC应该根本不需要
紧张，让他们自己杀就好了。
但是，如果券商出问题，崩了，SEC的保险是要赔钱给其他的券商
的散户的。
SEC应该不担心到底是多杀空，还是多杀多，最担心的还是系统崩溃，
自己要赔钱，但是他自己他妈的也是在裸泳。
空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点
cover我还信
【 在 lilyamao2 (lilyamao2) 的大作中提到: 】
: CNBC 说券商已经在星期二就suck up loss for 5 billion and closed the deal, 那
: 么是假的还是真的？
: 如果是真的，那么现在不就是多头在踩踏散户，散户还乐呵呵地以为自己在打空头？结
: 果是空头确实被打跑了，现在是散户被带头大哥们在割韭菜？ 因为几个带头大哥账户
: 里可是面值几亿的这种垃圾股，一旦crash掉要打回原形的。
: Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday
: afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC.
: CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short
: position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin
: Capital to shore up its finances.
: ...................
昨天120到300的这波就是空头平仓拉的 小散当时没法买
【在 salvere(salvere)的大作中提到：】
：空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点
：cover我还信
没人那么在乎GME， 怕的是这股暗流引发滔天巨浪。
小散买了那么多，空头想cover应该没有那么容易。
不过迷魂弹太多了，不知道哪个是真哪个是假了。
不过，在CNBC上怼记者的那个阿三billionaire是大赢家啊，
早上车早下车，已经财富自由了，还继续帮散户吹牛逼再送
他们一程。
【 在 salvere (salvere) 的大作中提到: 】
: 空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点
: cover我还信
滔天巨浪就是SEC加强管制，系统降杠杆。
很多被加杠杆short的行业，有可能会反弹一下，比如能源油气行业；
很多被加杠杆long的行业，可能会一泻千里，比如tsla，高科技股，
比特币。
总体来看，如果系统降杠杆的话，等同于加息，美股可能有一波大跌。
具体到不同的行业，跌涨又会有很大的不同。
以上都是我的野鸡分析，不收费，也不负责。
【 在 noregrets (风满袖) 的大作中提到: 】
: 没人那么在乎GME， 怕的是这股暗流引发滔天巨浪。
市场没有足够股票cover空仓
即使大空头跑了，拍死一群苍蝇也能警世
【 在 salvere (salvere) 的大作中提到: 】
: 空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点
: cover我还信
寅吃卯粮，引鸩止渴是有代价，杠杆也不可能无限加下去的。
全民裸泳的时代，就看大潮什么时候退去了。
中国的那边已经在主动应对退潮预期（收紧房贷），安排后事了。
美国还在编造通胀数据，企图蒙混过关。
又到了历史抉择的关口了，这次的中国可不是2008年的救美国
就是救中国的那个政府了。到底会发生什么，大家拭目以待吧。
发信人: awaydream (昆仑天下), 信区: Stock
标 题: Re: GME 的事情感觉要落幕了， 该跑的快跑吧
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Jan 29 11:18:51 2021, 美东)
大潮退去，结果发现，大家都在裸泳。
Fed在裸泳，SEC在裸泳，券商在裸泳，对冲基金在裸泳，大户在裸泳，
散户也在裸泳。没有裸泳的人，早就被这帮裸泳的拍死在沙滩上。
大潮退去，这帮裸泳的人又发生踩踏，互相拍。
感觉个屁
现在大佬在讨论如何跑能拿最多的钱
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我感觉，SEC找到Robinhood最核心的问题， 应该是Robinhood等券商提供了过高的杠杆
: 给散户。这些高杠杆资产一旦方向搞错，需要强平，又平不掉，那这些券商就得自己垫
: 钱了。
: 而券商如果又没有足够的准备金，类似马云的蚂蚁金服，直接玩100倍杠杆，后面可能
: 哗啦
: 一下就崩盘。
: Robinhood的小散户这几次大的狙击，应该有很多人买的是上杠杆的option，加了氰
化钾
: 的耗子药，毒老鼠的效果那当然是好的。但是，要是老鼠跑了，自己不得不吃，感觉毒
: 发起
: 来应该也是很快的。小散吃得太多，大量小散毒发身亡的话，Robinhood估计也会一起
: ...................
Chamath Palihapitiya已经赚饱跑掉了，
一边拍小散的马屁，一边把包袱甩给他们了。
这他妈是标准的人精。
人精已经撤退了，大家能撤的赶紧撤吧，后面
搞不好要踩踏了。
Chamath Palihapitiya 只是其中之一
神仙打架， 拉上散户当炮灰
按昨天的量，肯定离空头全部cover还差老远。
【 在 hihihihihihi (hello) 的大作中提到: 】
: 昨天120到300的这波就是空头平仓拉的 小散当时没法买
: ：空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点: ：cover我还信
Chamath就是赚眼球的，在电视上说都出货把赢的钱都捐了，也就500k。他也不敢底下
再持仓，虚假信息要坐牢的。
是差很远。
但是，SEC卡住小散杠杆，控制他们的弹药，空头就可以逐步撤退了。
SEC没出面， Melvin等那几个基金肯定完了。他们完了之后，多头相互
踩踏，最后Robinhood之类的券商估计也会完蛋。
【 在 mercer (search) 的大作中提到: 】
: 按昨天的量，肯定离空头全部cover还差老远。
赌徒们互掐，还会让赌场破产？奇葩啊
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 是差很远。
: 但是，SEC卡住小散杠杆，控制他们的弹药，空头就可以逐步撤退了。
: SEC没出面， Melvin等那几个基金肯定完了。他们完了之后，多头相互
: 踩踏，最后Robinhood之类的券商估计也会完蛋。
空头做空了140%的股票，根本撤不掉的。
空头想解套只有三种可能：
1. GameStop 破产清零。这样超过100%的空头仓位就不用平了。这也是空头本来的算盘。
2. 仓位小的空头解套认赔离场，仓位大的空头跑不完被强行平仓破产清算。目前还没
有任何空头破产清算，short squeeze 还没开始。
3. GameStop 给空头定向增发股票，帮空头解套。关键是空头空140%股票唯一的目标就是GameStop 破产清算，GameStop 为什么要帮想搞死自己的人？
一切的起因都是空头太贪，做空超过100%的股票，且不及时认输止损。现在只能是 GME 空头两边活一边了。wsb只是在押 GME 不会破产而已。
以让仅为个人观点，不构成任何投资建议。
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 是差很远。
: 但是，SEC卡住小散杠杆，控制他们的弹药，空头就可以逐步撤退了。
: SEC没出面， Melvin等那几个基金肯定完了。他们完了之后，多头相互
: 踩踏，最后Robinhood之类的券商估计也会完蛋。
赌徒需要赌场配资的， 需要杠杆的。
比如大量赌徒借了赌场的长，搞10倍杠杆。
股价突然暴跌，赌场强平赌徒的股票，回收本金。
但是，市场崩盘，在该平的点位平不掉。
赌徒自己一块钱， 借了赌场9块钱， 本来在跌了5毛就该平掉的。
结果就是平不掉，跌成5块才平掉。
赌徒亏光自己的1块，赌场赔进去4块。
赌徒破产，赌场要不要破产？
券商杠杆配资，赚高利息，不是没有风险的，这就是风险。
【 在 CokeCoke (nicedrink) 的大作中提到: 】
: 赌徒们互掐，还会让赌场破产？奇葩啊
茶马斯没买多少，不能说赚包了，人家后来都卷了。
斯里兰卡人
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: Chamath Palihapitiya已经赚饱跑掉了，
: 一边拍小散的马屁，一边把包袱甩给他们了。
: 这他妈是标准的人精。
: 人精已经撤退了，大家能撤的赶紧撤吧，后面
: 搞不好要踩踏了。
基金破产之后，那么多空单怎么办？若果作废的话，那就是借出股票的机构承担了。他们如果破产的话，那么借出的股票怎么搞回来？有AIG insurance负责帮机构还吗？
有知道的话讲解一下？
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 是差很远。
: 但是，SEC卡住小散杠杆，控制他们的弹药，空头就可以逐步撤退了。
: SEC没出面， Melvin等那几个基金肯定完了。他们完了之后，多头相互
: 踩踏，最后Robinhood之类的券商估计也会完蛋。
油价跌到负时的多头怎么办 这次的空头就怎么办
【在 mercer(search)的大作中提到：】
：基金破产之后，那么多空单怎么办？若果作废的话，那就是借出股票的机构承担了。他们如果破产的话，那么借出的股票怎么搞回来？有AIG insurance负责帮机构还吗？
：
理论上当空仓损失接近空头账户总价值时，会被强制平仓。
因为市场上不止一个空头，每个空头的资金量也不同，所以不会同时被强制
平仓。当小空头被平仓后大空头可以和GME或大股东商量一个清算价。
【 在 mercer (search) 的大作中提到: 】
: 基金破产之后，那么多空单怎么办？若果作废的话，那就是借出股票的机构承担了。他
: 们如果破产的话，那么借出的股票怎么搞回来？有AIG insurance负责帮机构还吗？
: 有知道的话讲解一下？
是没法全cover，但是很可能现在空头的cost已经低了很多，接下来几天散户需要随时
警惕空头出来公布自己已经全部cover
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 小散买了那么多，空头想cover应该没有那么容易。
: 不过迷魂弹太多了，不知道哪个是真哪个是假了。
: 不过，在CNBC上怼记者的那个阿三billionaire是大赢家啊，
: 早上车早下车，已经财富自由了，还继续帮散户吹牛逼再送
: 他们一程。
显然是假的。CNBC这些垃圾媒体什么时候说过真话？这话明显是吓唬散户的，让散户快撤。
要是周二就平仓了，昨天周四券商干嘛打压散户？
【 在 lilyamao2 (lilyamao2) 的大作中提到: 】
: CNBC 说券商已经在星期二就suck up loss for 5 billion and closed the deal, 那
: 么是假的还是真的？
: 如果是真的，那么现在不就是多头在踩踏散户，散户还乐呵呵地以为自己在打空头？结
: 果是空头确实被打跑了，现在是散户被带头大哥们在割韭菜？ 因为几个带头大哥账户
: 里可是面值几亿的这种垃圾股，一旦crash掉要打回原形的。
: Melvin Capital closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday
: afternoon after taking a huge loss, the hedge fund’s manager told CNBC.
: CNBC could not confirm the amount of losses the firm took on the short
: position. Citadel and Point72 have infused close to $3 billion into Melvin
: Capital to shore up its finances.
: ...................
为了保护散户投资者
哈哈
【 在 shusen(~~~) 的大作中提到: 】
: 显然是假的。CNBC这些垃圾媒体什么时候说过真话？这话明显是吓唬散户的，让散户快
: 撤。
: 要是周二就平仓了，昨天周四券商干嘛打压散户？
破产了还赔个屁，小三接盘，股票变废纸。
【 在 mercer (search) 的大作中提到: 】
: 基金破产之后，那么多空单怎么办？若果作废的话，那就是借出股票的机构承担了。他
: 们如果破产的话，那么借出的股票怎么搞回来？有AIG insurance负责帮机构还吗？
: 有知道的话讲解一下？
散户多头不可能赔啊，空头要cover，最少要用市价从多头手里买啊，市场上的股票根
本不够空头要买的，不耍赖不该规则散户不可能输钱。
熟食
【 在 salvere (salvere) 的大作中提到: 】
: 空头要是周二就跑了就不用周三禁散户交易了，昨天空头高位新开了空仓当天低点
: cover我还信
正解，140%做空只有GME破产才会清零，所以short squeeze还没完。现在主要是RH现在购买交易，量上不去，撑不上去
【 在 trandora (Trandora is not Fedora) 的大作中提到: 】
: 空头做空了140%的股票，根本撤不掉的。
: 空头想解套只有三种可能：
: 1. GameStop 破产清零。这样超过100%的空头仓位就不用平了。这也是空头本来的算盘。
: 2. 仓位小的空头解套认赔离场，仓位大的空头跑不完被强行平仓破产清算。目前还没
: 有任何空头破产清算，short squeeze 还没开始。
: 3. GameStop 给空头定向增发股票，帮空头解套。关键是空头空140%股票唯一的目标就
: 是GameStop 破产清算，GameStop 为什么要帮想搞死自己的人？
: 一切的起因都是空头太贪，做空超过100%的股票，且不及时认输止损。现在只能是
GME
: 空头两边活一边了。wsb只是在押 GME 不会破产而已。
: 以让仅为个人观点，不构成任何投资建议。
哇靠，干货！！谢谢！！
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 滔天巨浪就是SEC加强管制，系统降杠杆。
: 很多被加杠杆short的行业，有可能会反弹一下，比如能源油气行业；
: 很多被加杠杆long的行业，可能会一泻千里，比如tsla，高科技股，
: 比特币。
: 总体来看，如果系统降杠杆的话，等同于加息，美股可能有一波大跌。
: 具体到不同的行业，跌涨又会有很大的不同。
: 以上都是我的野鸡分析，不收费，也不负责。
主席英明！！
【 在 BCFnoodle (毛润之) 的大作中提到: 】
: 神仙打架， 拉上散户当炮灰
那么多证券商，rh影响有这么大吗？
【 在 McKinley(McKinley) 的大作中提到: 】
: 正解，140%做空只有GME破产才会清零，所以short squeeze还没完。现在主要是RH现在
: 购买交易，量上不去，撑不上去
: 盘。
: GME
5pm FOX的新闻说空头从140%降到了113%。离cover早了。而且现在事上了主流媒体，凑热闹的散户远不止reddit上的那些了。再下去真能破千。
这个事儿才开始
short squeeze根本都算不上有
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我感觉，SEC找到Robinhood最核心的问题， 应该是Robinhood等券商提供了过高的杠杆
: 给散户。这些高杠杆资产一旦方向搞错，需要强平，又平不掉，那这些券商就得自己垫
: 钱了。
: 而券商如果又没有足够的准备金，类似马云的蚂蚁金服，直接玩100倍杠杆，后面可能
: 哗啦
: 一下就崩盘。
: Robinhood的小散户这几次大的狙击，应该有很多人买的是上杠杆的option，加了氰
化钾
: 的耗子药，毒老鼠的效果那当然是好的。但是，要是老鼠跑了，自己不得不吃，感觉毒
: 发起
: 来应该也是很快的。小散吃得太多，大量小散毒发身亡的话，Robinhood估计也会一起
: ...................
+1，主要是被人抓住了140%的short rate，很难想象这下他们打算怎么脱身。除非再来一次too big to fall。
【 在 freelikewind (像风一样自由) 的大作中提到: 】
: 这个事儿才开始
: short squeeze根本都算不上有
: 化钾
我大概明白了空头的策略。跟券商狼狈为奸天天限制买只让卖，这样散户肯定开始动摇hold不住的，空头就有办法拿到筹码逃跑。每天降27%的话再来4天就完了。
【 在 roygreat (Light be with you.) 的大作中提到: 】
: 5pm FOX的新闻说空头从140%降到了113%。离cover早了。而且现在事上了主流媒体，凑
: 热闹的散户远不止reddit上的那些了。再下去真能破千。
你可以去查持仓比例。大多数筹码其实在fidelity，black stone和几个大股东手里。
小散其实就是被利用的义和团。
【 在 lanyin0314 (蓝音) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我大概明白了空头的策略。跟券商狼狈为奸天天限制买只让卖，这样散户肯定开始动摇
: hold不住的，空头就有办法拿到筹码逃跑。每天降27%的话再来4天就完了。
花街裤子脱了后面就好办了
那很可能这些大机构在别的地方达成妥协，然后相互转移股票，保持股价直到众人觉得无聊自动退去。
【 在 roygreat (Light be with you.) 的大作中提到: 】
: 你可以去查持仓比例。大多数筹码其实在fidelity，black stone和几个大股东手里。
: 小散其实就是被利用的义和团。
下面贴出了大股东持股数量和做空的股票数量。同时还有一个视频6分44秒之前是八卦
、之后是干货。四种股市生存法则：大盗睥睨四野的乱世可以君子不立危墙之下、可以小赌怡情、可以见好就收唯快不破、可以钻研套利的机会。
vhttps://www.youtube.com/v/DheCDMqEZ1U
【 在 lanyin0314 (蓝音) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我大概明白了空头的策略。跟券商狼狈为奸天天限制买只让卖，这样散户肯定开始动摇
: hold不住的，空头就有办法拿到筹码逃跑。每天降27%的话再来4天就完了。
you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B
borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase
this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return
it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for
short ratio to return to 0.
there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9% or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
【 在 McKinley (McKinley) 的大作中提到: 】
: 正解，140%做空只有GME破产才会清零，所以short squeeze还没完。现在主要是RH现在
: 购买交易，量上不去，撑不上去
: 盘。
: GME
查马嘶买的都是put 115
【 在 luckykkkk (kkkk) 的大作中提到: 】
: 茶马斯没买多少，不能说赚包了，人家后来都卷了。
: 斯里兰卡人
rb 已经全部是平掉了。没有马金的股了。
【 在 awaydream (null) 的大作中提到: 】
: 赌徒需要赌场配资的， 需要杠杆的。
:
: 比如大量赌徒借了赌场的长，搞10倍杠杆。
: 股价突然暴跌，赌场强平赌徒的股票，回收本金。
: 但是，市场崩盘，在该平的点位平不掉。
:
: 赌徒自己一块钱， 借了赌场9块钱， 本来在跌了5毛就该平掉的。
: 结果就是平不掉，跌成5块才平掉。
:
: 赌徒亏光自己的1块，赌场赔进去4块。
:
: 赌徒破产，赌场要不要破产？
:
:
: 券商杠杆配资，赚高利息，不是没有风险的，这就是风险。
:
:
:
:
: 【 在 CokeCoke (nicedrink) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 赌徒们互掐，还会让赌场破产？奇葩啊
无脑分析， 还写这么多。 机构持有110% GME 仓位，， 散户只有大概20％左右股票。
逼空主要是机构在搞， 小散吆喝而已。
【 在 awaydream (昆仑天下) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我感觉，SEC找到Robinhood最核心的问题， 应该是Robinhood等券商提供了过高的杠杆
: 给散户。这些高杠杆资产一旦方向搞错，需要强平，又平不掉，那这些券商就得自己垫
: 钱了。
: 而券商如果又没有足够的准备金，类似马云的蚂蚁金服，直接玩100倍杠杆，后面可能
: 哗啦
: 一下就崩盘。
: Robinhood的小散户这几次大的狙击，应该有很多人买的是上杠杆的option，加了氰
化钾
: 的耗子药，毒老鼠的效果那当然是好的。但是，要是老鼠跑了，自己不得不吃，感觉毒
: 发起
: 来应该也是很快的。小散吃得太多，大量小散毒发身亡的话，Robinhood估计也会一起
: ...................
神仙打架，小鬼外围蹦蹦跳跳好热闹。
对外洗脑成小鬼打架干翻了某几个大神仙！
这些机构做对冲，都是专门的告诉计算机，外加定制的网卡，直接接在花姐的大路由器端口上，比别人快几个毫秒知道很多数据，然后定制的硬件加速+软件去算风险，看看
自己有什么策略去搞。
自己去年被骚扰过几个类似的软硬件加速 工程师职位，全是金融公司。
其实20年前，华尔街就是这个样子，只不过现在计算能力越来越强。
【 在 happymaker (happymaker) 的大作中提到: 】
: 无脑分析， 还写这么多。 机构持有110% GME 仓位，， 散户只有大概20％左右股票
: 。
: 逼空主要是机构在搞， 小散吆喝而已。
: 化钾
不会这样的。
这些short option并非一次到期，所以不存在股票不够平仓的问题。
只是空头买完要再买一次，而多头相当于一鱼两吃。
【 在 roygreat (Light be with you.) 的大作中提到: 】
: 5pm FOX的新闻说空头从140%降到了113%。离cover早了。而且现在事上了主流媒体，凑
: 热闹的散户远不止reddit上的那些了。再下去真能破千。
显然你的-40P和+50P的两条腿不是在在一单里open、而是在不同时间leg in的——因为options market maker不可能给你这么简单arbitrage的机会，这是常识。这两条腿之
所以最后结果看似无风险，是因为你leg in +50P之后，运气好，股价恰好大幅下跌，
然后你再leg in -40P。如果你leg in +50P之后股价不巧move against you（大幅上涨），你就不再拥有无风险leg in -40P的机会。说白了还是靠运气和market timing。
【 在 stockschat (摸不着头脑) 的大作中提到: 】
: 下面贴出了大股东持股数量和做空的股票数量。同时还有一个视频6分44秒之前是八卦
: 、之后是干货。四种股市生存法则：大盗睥睨四野的乱世可以君子不立危墙之下、可以
: 小赌怡情、可以见好就收唯快不破、可以钻研套利的机会。
: https://youtu.be/DheCDMqEZ1U
: vhttps://www.youtube.com/v/DheCDMqEZ1U
mark
【 在 xinfo (flowing) 的大作中提到: 】
: 神仙打架，小鬼外围蹦蹦跳跳好热闹。
: 对外洗脑成小鬼打架干翻了某几个大神仙！
: 这些机构做对冲，都是专门的告诉计算机，外加定制的网卡，直接接在花姐的大路由器
: 端口上，比别人快几个毫秒知道很多数据，然后定制的硬件加速+软件去算风险，看看
: 自己有什么策略去搞。
: 自己去年被骚扰过几个类似的软硬件加速 工程师职位，全是金融公司。
: 其实20年前，华尔街就是这个样子，只不过现在计算能力越来越强。
【 在 lanyin0314 (null) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我大概明白了空头的策略。跟券商狼狈为奸天天限制买只让卖，这样散户肯定开始动摇
: hold不住的，空头就有办法拿到筹码逃跑。每天降27%的话再来4天就完了。
:
: 【 在 roygreat (Light be with you.) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 5pm FOX的新闻说空头从140%降到了113%。离cover早了。而且现在事上了主流媒体，凑
: : 热闹的散户远不止reddit上的那些了。再下去真能破千。
对，不卖，就不卖。
小散是未来。
【 在 xinfo (null) 的大作中提到: 】
: 神仙打架，小鬼外围蹦蹦跳跳好热闹。
:
: 对外洗脑成小鬼打架干翻了某几个大神仙！
:
: 这些机构做对冲，都是专门的告诉计算机，外加定制的网卡，直接接在花姐的大路由器
: 端口上，比别人快几个毫秒知道很多数据，然后定制的硬件加速+软件去算风险，看看
: 自己有什么策略去搞。
:
: 自己去年被骚扰过几个类似的软硬件加速 工程师职位，全是金融公司。
:
: 其实20年前，华尔街就是这个样子，只不过现在计算能力越来越强。
:
:
: 【 在 happymaker (happymaker) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 无脑分析， 还写这么多。 机构持有110% GME 仓位，， 散户只有大概20％左右股票
: : 。
: : 逼空主要是机构在搞， 小散吆喝而已。
: : 化钾
非常同意。你真是火眼金睛。
但是即使在同一单里面做这两条腿，相差10块钱的行权价，曾经出现过只有一毛多钱的期权价差，所以如果你以两毛钱的价差下一个limit order，运气好是能抓到的。虽然
付出两毛钱的代价，但是我觉得还是值得的。我一来是为了贪便宜，二来是为了好玩才铤而走险打了一个时间差。本来以为一两个小时就可以做好，结果等了一天。
【 在 Leiss (徕司) 的大作中提到: 】
: 显然你的-40P和+50P的两条腿不是在在一单里open、而是在不同时间leg in的——因为
: options market maker不可能给你这么简单arbitrage的机会，这是常识。这两条腿之
: 所以最后结果看似无风险，是因为你leg in +50P之后，运气好，股价恰好大幅下跌，
: 然后你再leg in -40P。如果你leg in +50P之后股价不巧move against you（大幅上涨
: ），你就不再拥有无风险leg in -40P的机会。说白了还是靠运气和market timing。
这个是140% short interest. 总共流通是240%。机构占110% of floating 散户占130% of floating 所有的股票都是一仆二主（超过二主）
【 在 happymaker (happymaker) 的大作中提到: 】
: 无脑分析， 还写这么多。 机构持有110% GME 仓位，， 散户只有大概20％左右股票
: 。
: 逼空主要是机构在搞， 小散吆喝而已。
: 化钾
这里面的错误是需要卖两次才能cover。
E 漫天要价后， D买回来，还给 C.
C 再来一轮漫天要价，B买回来还给A
所以140% 的 short 率和 100% short 率 是完全不一样的
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】
: you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if
: the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
: consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to
: E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return
: it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0.
: there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9%
: or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
wow, nice. i just posted a similar version in another thread. but you got it first.
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】
: you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if
: the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
: consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to
: E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return
: it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0.
: there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9%
: or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
in this example, not only E, but also A and C, can decide to sell their
shares at any moment, which will trigger a chain reaction. if A attempts to sell, what will happen for B, C, D, and E, and their brokers?
the higher the short ratio, the more complicated the situation is.
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】
: you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if
: the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
: consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to
: E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return
: it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0.
: there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9%
: or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.
看来你还是没有搞清楚问题的关键：有些卖空的并没有"借"股票来卖，而是“naked
short”，所以才出现了超过100%的ratio。
【 在 startrek (voyager) 的大作中提到: 】
: you guys seem to suggest it's theoretically impossible for short to cover if
: the short ratio is > 100%, but it is not true.
: consider a company has issued only 1 share and A is the original owner. B : borrows it and short-sells to C. Then D borrows it from C and short-sells to
: E. Now the short ratio is 200%. Either one of B and D can still purchase : this one share in circulation from E, at whatever price E asks, and return
: it to whom he borrows from. And the same process can happen 2nd time for : short ratio to return to 0.
: there should be no fundamental difference between short interest being 99.9%
: or 100.1%; it's just more difficult to cover when it's higher.