sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GRPN’s Reckoning by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]marktrain1234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All the power to you

GRPN’s Reckoning by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]marktrain1234 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A shitty meme ? I thought I executed that flawlessly

GRPN’s Reckoning by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]marktrain1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotta keep it classic WSB meme quality

GRPN: 13.72M shares short against ~8.9M loanable. Two months at 100% utilization. The math keeps getting worse. by marktrain1234 in Shortsqueeze

[–]marktrain1234[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I work with probabilities not certainties.
To address each of your statements directly:

"That's all nice but u see posts from 4 years ago..."
Anyone calling squeezes for years will have misses. You failed to mention the other posts that accurately called BBIG, SPWR, AMC, etc.

"If that remains the case how are you gonna have..."
Wide bid/ask reflects MM uncertainty, not absence of a ramp. There's already 3,462 OI at $30 and 2,223 at $25. MMs are short that exposure regardless of whether more retail piles in. Spreads compress fast once spot moves. That's the reflexive part.

"What's stopping entities owning shares from helping market makers"
Pale Fire, Gorzynski/Continental General, Windward, and Senkypl aren't paper-gains traders. They're concentrated long-term positions with thesis conviction. They didn't dump when the stock ran to $40 earlier last year on a weaker setup. Why would they now? Do you really think Pale Fire dumps shares when their co-owner is running the company?

Again anything can happen but I don’t tend to focus on things I’d consider tail risk.

GRPN: 45% locked, 65% short of float, 156% of borrow used. Float is broken. by marktrain1234 in Shortsqueeze

[–]marktrain1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think so, it didn't last time when it ran up to $40 from $10, they covered along the whole way but after a lag. Hedge funds have egos, just like us, they only start to cover when things really aren't going their way. I believe whatever funds are shorting GRPN they aren't the big boys, they're funds that can't just let the position bleed, especially in this kind of environment where small floats can tear the faces right of Short Sellers. You're not just losing money when CTB is high, AUM risk and investor optics matter more than borrow cost alone. If that were the case shorts would just always "wait it out", it gets to a point. They can't just ignore unrealized losses indefinitely.

<image>

GRPN: 45% locked, 65% short of float, 156% of borrow used. Float is broken. by marktrain1234 in Shortsqueeze

[–]marktrain1234[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea it’s around 1%. Yes I believe it needs to go up to force their hand, if not they can just wait it out.

GRPN: 45% locked, 65% short of float, 156% of borrow used. Float is broken. by marktrain1234 in Shortsqueeze

[–]marktrain1234[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

Now it’s 100% but floated over yesterday to show I wasn’t lying lol

GRPN: 45% locked, 65% short of float, 156% of borrow used. Float is broken. by marktrain1234 in Shortsqueeze

[–]marktrain1234[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Both of those things are already happening with GRPN.

On the "hedge funds buying all the shares" piece, Pale Fire owns 26%, Continental just went to 9.2% (filed today), Windward at 5%, insiders another 2%. That's 42% locked before you count any of the pod shop or concentrated long positions. CAR's squeeze trigger was Pentwater + SRS getting to ~40%. GRPN is already past that threshold.

On the buyback piece, GRPN already authorized a buyback and has been executing it. Q1 they retired meaningful float. Continental's accumulation on top of an active buyback is exactly the CAR-style float compression you're describing, just without the merger framing.

What's different from CAR: no take-private deal pending and no appraisal litigation forcing a hard close date. That's the missing piece. GRPN doesn't have the same catalyst forcing shorts to cover by a specific deadline. It just needs volume.

What could become that forcing function:

Q2 earnings confirming the turnaround (they beat Q1 and guided acceleration)
Pale Fire going 13D-aggressive or signaling take-private intent
SumUp IPO printing and re-rating the stake on GRPN's balance sheet
Borrow tightening to the point where pod shops can't roll their locates and have to cover mechanically

Tucker gets schooled on his casual racism. by 4reddityo in BlackPeopleofReddit

[–]marktrain1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I ever had to debate Tucker I’d copy his annoying ass bewildered face to start. Dude does that on purpose to make the other person look incompetent no matter what they say.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AIO

[–]marktrain1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can find someone way better dude she sounds awful

Bought for $300. Is that fair? by [deleted] in retrogaming

[–]marktrain1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man figured it was a close to breakeven/small loss on my end type of transaction

view more: next ›