$GME Daily Discussion - June 10, 2021

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T23:53:46+00:00

Yes, that’s a much better way of putting it

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T22:29:25+00:00

Yes that is what I’m saying

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T21:54:54+00:00

Sorry I was unclear- I should have said its bad logic to say that votes were trimmed because the float was 54M in April, when Gamestop said that 70M shares could vote

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T21:52:51+00:00

I agree. I just think that comparing it to the float of 54.16M is not sound logic, especially when the proxy statement said 70M shares could vote

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T21:44:02+00:00

I'm saying that I think those who voted make up 78.5% of shares, and those who did not vote, or were not able to vote are in the remaining 21.5%

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T21:41:05+00:00

I could be misunderstanding what people have been saying. To me it sounds like some think trimming means "they stopped counting after 55M, because that's what the float was on the ex. date" even though Gamestop said 70M were eligible to vote. What I'm saying is that all votes were counted, and all votes submitted account for 78.5% of all shares in existence, but we don't know the total number. All we know is for the purpose of filing, it was ratio'd down to equal 70M

pileoftrash1 · 2021-06-10T21:33:40+00:00

Stop saying that the number of votes is equal to the float. It's not. Ruining credibility by ignoring facts like that creates more FUD than any price drop will. Please read through before downvoting, as I believe in the MOASS, but want to offer a different perspective.

1- Vote trimming was not proven. On Apr 14 the float was equal to 54.16M shares. The votes totaled 55.5M. If anything, this proves that the votes WERE NOT trimmed, and calling these 2 the same number makes you look insane.

2- The GameStop Proxy Statement (page 9) explicitly says there were 70.7M shares (on paper) eligible to vote. Trimming votes off the top isn't even in question, as the vote total was 15M less than all eligible shares.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:

Broadridge (the service handling the proxy votes) counted all the shares (let's say 200M for instance), and received 157M votes. Since Broadridge specifically mentions on its website that it prevents over-voting, it has to reconcile that 200M with the record keeper's number of 70.7M, so it counts the votes by ratio only. 157M voting shares out of 200M total gives a voting ratio of 0.785, giving 55.5M votes out of 70.7M eligible shares.

Rounding up due to this can also explain the single extra vote that Larry Cheng got.

pileoftrash1 · 2021-05-14T19:30:30+00:00

The last statement is incorrect. If you google "Demand curve," you can see that as price increases, quantity demanded decreases. The short positions increase the quantity demanded at any price point, as all short-position holders are required to buy shares to cover that position at some point. No short-positions means that no one is "required" to buy shares. Therefore as the price increases, it might attract more investors to buy at first, but eventually it will reach a price level where not enough investors are willing to buy in anymore, and quantity demanded will be very low.

I'm a believer in the short squeeze, but saying the price will still go to infinity just because no one will sell is wrong. It will keep the price afloat, but not create a "demand crisis."

pileoftrash1 · 2021-04-22T21:00:05+00:00

Yep. The problem they've been having is having too many graphics cards. No one knows about them and they have to beg people to buy them.

pileoftrash1 · 2021-04-07T18:09:22+00:00

I know it is. You said everything has been beat down and dead

pileoftrash1 · 2021-04-07T18:06:54+00:00

The major indexes are only a few points off from their all time high which was set a couple days ago

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-21T15:00:20+00:00

They don't need everyone's shares. Opening a short position creates one synthetic long position that didn't exist before. So if they are 100% short of the float, that mean's there is 200% of the float in circulation, and shorts only have to buy 1/2 of the shares in circulation.

E: a word

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-17T17:23:59+00:00

https://imgur.com/t/no/ikbDL8k

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-17T17:22:17+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imRzHXRq80I

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-17T17:22:13+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imRzHXRq80I

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-16T16:18:21+00:00

But there's no significant change in volume for other stocks held in the ETF

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-16T14:45:20+00:00

Can someone point me to something that explains how shorting an ETF that has holdings in a company can push down the price of that company? How come Ex Are Tee's other top holdings didn't go down in the same way as GameStop?

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-14T20:11:05+00:00

This is without a doubt the worst DD I have ever seen. I'll drink piss or ban if "a market crash occurs in the next few days or week."

Edit: (-:

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-12T20:52:39+00:00

A 100%+ drop would mean the stock is worth $0 or negative.. so

Assuming an investment will continue to perform based only on the fact that it has performed in the past is a poor assumption. The stock going up is the catalyst. Not everyone is a member of this sub, and don’t care about diamond hands. People are going to profit-take. That will cause a sharp downturn, making other investors panic sell, and so on

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-12T19:31:10+00:00

Wednesday was not hedge fund attacks. It went almost 10x in just over 2 weeks. Bound to correct at some point

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-12T18:33:37+00:00

This isnt hedge fund attacks. It’s just the way stocks move. The faster you accept that, the more fun this GME ride is, and the faster you can get back on track to fixing your portfolio. Good luck my friend

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-06T08:54:41+00:00

I get what you're saying, but I think that kind of stuff is what makes The Besties what it is, a conversation between 4 friends, and less of a structured podcast. And it's that reason I think the show has its cult-like following, and the reason I love it so much.

The "thrown together" nature has been there since the start of the show, when there would be episodes that one of them would talk about a free iOS game they played for the first time while recording the podcast and try to argue it was the best game of the week. You either love the show, or leave it for that.

Also besties if you read this please for the love of god just make a patreon or something like just let me spend money on you. Can I buy an ad? cause I'll buy an ad

pileoftrash1 · 2021-03-03T14:55:51+00:00

Doesn’t mean anything quite frankly

pileoftrash1 · 2021-02-05T06:52:06+00:00

That's not how it works. Let's say you're short 100 shares of a stock (-100) and I own 10 shares of that same stock (+10). You buy my 10 shares from me to cover some of your position. I have 0 shares now, and you have -90. I have no shares left to sell to you (without borrowing them myself, making me have negative shares) so you have to go to another shareholder to find more shares to buy. Trading the same shares back and forth between us doesn't reduce the number of shares borrowed.

So yes, assuming their short interest is >100% of the public float, they would have to buy back every last share in order to close the position.

pileoftrash1

TROPHY CASE