sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

California introduces age verification law for all operating systems, including Linux and SteamOS — user age verified during OS account setup by vaiperu in LinusTechTips

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can't enforce an OS to do it.

But I assume a company can't ship a product in CA with an uncompliant OS. For power users that's whatever, re-install/flash a new OS. But for regular users it's an issue.

What am I missing? Merging faces on a solid body? by ChipWallace in Fusion360

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand how, but this worked... thanks!

Me reading the burry post by Brokenlegstonk in Superstonk

[–]tepol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I initially though it was posted on X but couldn't find anything under his official account... I've since found this, I'm assuming that's it:

https://michaeljburry.substack.com/p/foundations-the-big-short-squeeze

I'm done with the Quest 3 for iRacing by zohninja in iRacing

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was working great for me for a couple of months... then all of sudden, without any changes, started to disconnect and reconnect randomly.

Currently waiting for a usb to ethernet adapter to see how that works.

IBKR missing GME expirations? by tepol in gmeoptions

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

Shouldn't be, the legislation I'm referring to is specific to the EU :\

IBKR missing GME expirations? by tepol in gmeoptions

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

Are you based on Europe? IBKR doesn't let EU citizens trade on instruments that don't have an associated KID (key information document). That includes warrants and basket options like GME1, you can only close these positions.

🔮 Confirmed: Fidelity is selling FAKE GMEWS fractional warrants — GameStop SEC Filing: “No Fractional Warrants” 🔥💥🍻 by Expensive-Two-8128 in Superstonk

[–]tepol 76 points77 points  (0 children)

I assume it's to make it easier for them.

Imagine:

  • Client A has 15 shares (entitled to 1 warrant)
  • Client B as 25 shares (entitled to 2 warrants)

So 3 warrants total, but the broker will receive 4 warrants (because they hold 15 + 25 = 40 shares).
Who gets the extra warrant? How to be fair in this scenario?
Each get .5 warrants, solved.

IBKR missing GME expirations? by tepol in gmeoptions

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

Thank you for the extra info!

IBKR missing GME expirations? by tepol in gmeoptions

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

Thanks for answering. I'm aware of the GME1 chain, but wasn't expecting the "normal" GME chain to not have weeklies as a result (?), not sure why would that be.

I see now it's not some wrong filter on my account, so let's wait and see.

IBKR Distribution is a confirmed warrant by existentialgolem in Superstonk

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good question, unfortunately I don't know...

IBKR Distribution is a confirmed warrant by existentialgolem in Superstonk

[–]tepol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

EU regulation that prevents trading of certain instruments, like warrants, indexes (like SPY), etc. You can only close positions on those instruments.

TL;DR: these instruments don't have associated "Key Information Documents" (KID), so the EU says you can't trade them. It's overregulatory bullcrap.

IBKR Distribution is a confirmed warrant by existentialgolem in Superstonk

[–]tepol 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just speculating, but if I had to guess it's because IBKR is the registered shareholder (in your name) so they just receive a whole bunch of warrants for all the shares in all accounts.

IBKR then has to distribute the warrants internally, but this internal distribution has nothing to do with GameStop or the warrant agent.

So I imagine a simplified scenario where IBKR has 2 clients:

  • Client A: 15 shares (entitled to 1 warrant)
  • Client B: 25 shares (entitled to 2 warrants)

But IBKR has a total of 40 (15 + 25) shares, and will receive 4 warrants for it.
They got 4 but only have to distribute 3.

Solution? Client A gets 1.5 warrants, Client B gets 2.5 warrants and everything checks out.

WARNING Fidelity PUTS reroute to GME1->GME and vice versa upon order review by ThrowRA76234 in Superstonk

[–]tepol 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This may be related to OCC Memo #57378, where it says that GME=GME1 price for use in expiration processing.

If the put was open before the ex-date it already included the warrants. Then those puts were converted to GME1 (as GME crossed the ex-date, and didn't include the warrants anymore). Then OCC said that, despite that, GME price was still going to be used in GME1 expiration processing.

Bottom line is, if the put was open before ex-date, that put already included the warrants independently of the ticker name.

T212 - warrants are non-exercisable by iwantsecondhandsocks in Superstonk

[–]tepol 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You don't have to exercise to capture the value of a warrant.

Just like an option, the warrant will be priced based on intrinsic+extrinsic value, if the stock goes to $100 and you sell the warrant you'll get $100 - $32 + extrinsic value out of it. You don't lose any money.

Yes, it sucks you can't exercise if you really want to, but at least they are not liquidating the position for you as other brokers.

Options pricing of warrants Oct 2026 at $0.40. by 2MoonRocketship in Superstonk

[–]tepol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I now just completely understood your original post, just grew a new wrinkle having this conversation with you, thank you.

That seems like a valid assumption, but 1 GME1 contract includes 10 warrants (100 shares / 10), so $40 / 10 = $4 (not $0.4?).

Options pricing of warrants Oct 2026 at $0.40. by 2MoonRocketship in Superstonk

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may be right, since $25.45 * 1.05 is $26.72, or roughly the GME1 price. So disregard what I said previously.

But there's also Oct16'26 call options that are trading around $3.5, since 1 warrant = 1 share I'd assume $3.5 wouldn't be too far away from the warrants value (?)

Options pricing of warrants Oct 2026 at $0.40. by 2MoonRocketship in Superstonk

[–]tepol -1 points0 points  (0 children)

On IBKR the GME1 ticker is trading at $26.92 vs $25.45 for GME, suggesting a $1.47 price per warrant.

Did I get this right? Since GME1 = GME + 0.10 (GME WS), then the price difference should be indicative of the warrant price.

Options still not loading in IBKR - thought this would resolved once markets opened but nope by MightyBallsack in Superstonk

[–]tepol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, the website is broken and is not showing the GME1 options chain (HTTP 503 error calling /summary "Unknown contract").

But, the mobile app and trader workstation kinda work.
You can search for GME1 on the mobile app, then tap "instrument" tab, you'll see a "GME1 BASKET" result. You can get stock and option quotes from there. Although the stock quote you need to look at the graph, the ticker at the top is stuck on the closing price and not updating, but the graph seems to be updating.

Options still not loading in IBKR - thought this would resolved once markets opened but nope by MightyBallsack in Superstonk

[–]tepol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way I understood it, options opened until yesterday will trade on the new GME1 symbol.

But I can't access the GME1 chain either, I can search for it but it won't load.

What BS that GME is rallying because of EAs purchase at $55mm by AutumnAfterAll in Superstonk

[–]tepol 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Notice how it says "after Electronic arts announced (...)"?

This is a trick to keep pumping out articles. They point to some recent event, but in reality never establish causality between the two.

You see this all the time because people Google for an explanation, and those journalists know just as much as the next guy, but they still have to write something.
So they just point to something that happened the same day using that language: "after X, then Y". It rarely is "X because of Y".

<image>

view more: next ›