stu2b50's recent activity
-
Comment on Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy - Remastered versions of GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas releasing on consoles and PC later this year in ~games
-
Comment on GeForce Now cloud gaming service adds new RTX 3080 membership tier, supporting streaming at up to 1440p and 120 FPS in ~games
stu2b50 Link ParentMaybe when GPU prices are back down to earth. A 3080 alone has a market price of ~$1500, which alone would pay for 7.5 years of the higher tier. Add on the rest of the PC and it'll be 10+ years...Maybe when GPU prices are back down to earth. A 3080 alone has a market price of ~$1500, which alone would pay for 7.5 years of the higher tier. Add on the rest of the PC and it'll be 10+ years before you start saving money.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentYeah, I realized that this was something that could catch people up. It doesn't help that there ALSO exists the short interest ratio, which is unitless (although, also could hypothetically be...Yeah, I realized that this was something that could catch people up. It doesn't help that there ALSO exists the short interest ratio, which is unitless (although, also could hypothetically be >100%; the short interest ratio is shorts / average daily trade volume, so technically a stock with low trade volume, when then heavily gets shorted could be >100%)
Some further reading if you're interested:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/082201.asp
When expressed as a percentage, short interest is the number of shorted shares divided by the number of shares outstanding. For example, a stock with 1.5 million shares sold short and 10 million shares outstanding has a short interest of 15% (1.5 million/10 million = 15%).
Most stock exchanges track the short interest in each stock and issue reports at month's end, although Nasdaq is among those reporting twice monthly. These reports are great for traders because they allow people to gauge the overall market sentiment surrounding a particular stock by showing what short-sellers are doing.
...
The short-interest ratio is the number of shares sold short (short interest) divided by average daily volume. This is often called the "days-to-cover ratio" because it determines, based on the stock's average trading volume, how many days it will take short sellers to cover their positions if positive news about the company lifts the price.
Let's assume a stock has a short interest of 40 million shares, while the average daily volume of shares traded is 20 million. Doing a quick and easy calculation (40,000,000 / 20,000,000), we find that it would take two days for all of the short sellers to cover their positions. The higher the ratio, the longer it will take to buy back the borrowed shares – an important factor upon which traders or investors decide whether to take a short position. Typically, if the days to cover stretch past eight or more days, covering a short position could prove difficult.
As a bonus, the wikipedia article on how banks "create" money by holding deposits and lending them out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Role_of_commercial_banks
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentThey're actually counted on a monthly time period (except NASDAQ, which does it once every other week) but we can pretend it's daily. You count up the total number of transactions that were a...- Exemplary
They're actually counted on a monthly time period (except NASDAQ, which does it once every other week) but we can pretend it's daily.
You count up the total number of transactions that were a short sell in a day, then divide that by the total number of shares that exist. They are batched over the entire day (well, monthly IRL).
I think part of the confusion is that usually a percentage is unitless; both the numerator and the denominator have the same unit.
Here, they're just completely different things. One is counting the # of a type of transaction, the other is counting the # of shares that exist.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentHow many apples outstanding are there? Just 1. How many apples were sold short? 2: one short sale by Bob, one by Evan. So short interest is Shares Sold Short / Shares Outsanding (total number of...How many apples outstanding are there? Just 1. How many apples were sold short? 2: one short sale by Bob, one by Evan.
So short interest is Shares Sold Short / Shares Outsanding (total number of shares issued)
= 2 / 1 = 2, or 200%.
Maybe my misunderstanding has nothing to do with understanding naked shorting and has everything to do with how short interest is computed?
I think that's it. It's similar to the way that banks "create" money.
If I have $50, and I deposit it at a bank, then the bank lends $30 out to Bob, and Bob buys a Macbook Pro from Alice for $30, how much money exists in this world?
Well, I have $50, and Alice has $30, so $80. Even though we started with $50, because we still count me as having my $50 even when I give it to the bank's custody as a deposit.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentHm, I'm not sure where you're confused. Remember the definition of a naked short: selling an asset without having anything to sell. Alice has an apple Alice lends to Bob (fine) Bob sells to Cindy...Hm, I'm not sure where you're confused. Remember the definition of a naked short: selling an asset without having anything to sell.
-
Alice has an apple
-
Alice lends to Bob (fine)
-
Bob sells to Cindy (fine, because Bob has an apple in his hands that he can hand to Cindy)
-
Cindy lends to Evan (fine)
-
Evan can sell to Joe (fine, because Evan has an apple in his hand, lent from Cindy, that he can hand to Joe)
Being able to physically hand an apple over represents the obligation to have a stock to sell before selling it (usually by borrowing it; wouldn't really be a short otherwise).
None of those were naked shorts. What would be a naked short?
-
Bob does not have an apple
-
Bob sells an apple to Cindy (!! What is he selling? THIS is the naked short!)
-
At the last minute Bob buys an apple and gives it to Cindy, pocketing the difference (if the price of apples went down, that is)
-
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentThe key is that the people who lent the apples still are considered to be owning apples. It's the same as in fractional reserve banking, wherein effectively more money exists after people deposit...The key is that the people who lent the apples still are considered to be owning apples. It's the same as in fractional reserve banking, wherein effectively more money exists after people deposit their money and it is lent out than exists before it.
I think the confusion here is the exact definition of a "naked short". Naked shorting is specifically not having the asset you're selling when you're making the sale. It is fine to sell an apple when you have a contract that states that you'll have to give someone else back an apple at a later date.
In that vein, it is fine for there to be more short positions than assets - clearly, since that was the case here. What is specifically not fine is making a contract to sell an asset without having anything to give to that other person when you made the sale.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentIt's the same in real life, no? If you borrow an apple, there is nothing stopping you from lending it again, or selling it to someone else. Here, the laws of physics ensures the consistency of the...It's the same in real life, no? If you borrow an apple, there is nothing stopping you from lending it again, or selling it to someone else. Here, the laws of physics ensures the consistency of the apples in the world.
Let's say the price of an apple is $1. You believe that in a week, you'll be able to buy an apple for $0.50. You go to the grocery store and borrow an apple, promising to give one back in a week.
Now you go on ebay and sell the apple for $1. The apple is now off in the void of ebay - your apple has gone who knows where. Your plan is to wait a week and buy back an apple from ebay for $0.50 to give back to the grocery store. Not necessarily the same apple, just an apple.
Now let's say I'm the guy who buys the apple from you on ebay. I have an apple - a physical apple, that clearly cannot be cloned. My friend bob also thinks that apples will cost $0.50 in a week. He asks if he can borrow my apple and give an apple back in a week. I agree.
Now he goes and sells an apple for $1 on ebay.
That's short selling twice.
What would naked shorting be? It would be if you, thinking that apples will go to $0.50 in a week, immediately go on ebay and sell an apple. You don't have any apples. Someone buys your apple for $1 on ebay. But you don't have an apple - you're going say, "hey, sorry having some shipping issues" - "yo, can you give some time my roof just fell in" etc for a week. Hopefully you'll be able to buy an apple for $0.50 in a week and then give it to your ebay buyer.
But you don't actually have anything to give to the buyer when you sold him the apple - you're betting on being able to acquire an apple before you need to deliver it to him.
You can see that it's a very different situation from above. Whether or not it's naked is whether or not you have anything at all when you promise to sell something to someone. A lended apple is perfectly fine for the buyer - it's your ass in the fire when the grocery store wants an apple back in a week.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 Link ParentNaked shorting is selling shorts on assets that you don't actually own - literally don't own, having a share that was also lent to you are part of another short counts as owning the asset. As in,...Naked shorting is selling shorts on assets that you don't actually own - literally don't own, having a share that was also lent to you are part of another short counts as owning the asset.
As in, you just sell a contract that, if executed, you cannot uphold because you don't own necessary components of the contract.
A stock that gets shorted twice is not naked shorting.
-
Comment on SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021 in ~finance
stu2b50 LinkSEC report on Gamestop came out, it's mostly what everyone (that's sane) expected but still interesting to read. There's also a corresponding Matt Levine column that came out. Some interesting...SEC report on Gamestop came out, it's mostly what everyone (that's sane) expected but still interesting to read. There's also a corresponding Matt Levine column that came out.
Some interesting points
- Was not a gamma squeeze
- Wasn't really a short squeeze - some price increases correlated with short covering, but was mostly retail fervor
However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy
volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short
positions would have waned... it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that
sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock.- Explanation on DTCC margin requirements and how that related to some brokers restricting customers from buying volatile stocks during that period
Clearing agencies (i.e., NSCC and, to a lesser extent, OCC) played important roles during
the January 2021 GME market events. The risk management mechanisms of these clearing
agencies effectively led others in the transaction chain—such as retail broker-dealers—to pause
and manage the risk exposure that arose as the rate of transactions accelerated. Both NSCC and
OCC experienced record volumes cleared on January 27, 2021. After the market events of late
January 2021, both NSCC’s and OCC’s margin requirements returned to prior and more
historically consistent levels.- Short interest was high in January (up to 120%), by February it was back down to 20%
-
SEC report on Gamestop, AMC stock price jumps in January 2021
7 votes -
Comment on Thousands of people are trying to leave QAnon, but getting out is almost impossible in ~health
stu2b50 Link ParentTrump isn't leading it, though. He has little to no direct contact with them, rarely even acknowledges their existence, and often does things counter to Q ideology like his recent vaccination...Trump isn't leading it, though. He has little to no direct contact with them, rarely even acknowledges their existence, and often does things counter to Q ideology like his recent vaccination promotion. It's very different from a Keith Raniere or Ron Hubbard, where they're clearly involved directly in the organization.
Trump is more of a weird mythological figure for QAnon.
-
Comment on Thousands of people are trying to leave QAnon, but getting out is almost impossible in ~health
stu2b50 LinkWhat I find weirdest about Q-Anon is that it's not really a cult, or at least how I think about cults. What I think is the beating heart of a cult is a charismatic leader leading from the top,...What I find weirdest about Q-Anon is that it's not really a cult, or at least how I think about cults. What I think is the beating heart of a cult is a charismatic leader leading from the top, usually for their own gain. They're the force indoctrinating people and leading the troops from above.
But there's not really anything like that for QAnon. The titular Q is probably ron watkins, and speaks in gibberish on 8chan. Not exactly a bastion of charisma, not to mention they haven't posted anything in quite a while.
There are plenty of Q "priests", but no Q pope or Q jesus. It's weirdly decentralized and sticky.
-
Comment on New MacBook Pros in ~tech
stu2b50 Link ParentI think that looks fine. I’d take more screen space for that any day. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an option in Monterey to permanently black out the area next to the notch anyway, since that...I think that looks fine. I’d take more screen space for that any day.
Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an option in Monterey to permanently black out the area next to the notch anyway, since that appears to be the default behavior when full screening an app.
-
Comment on New MacBook Pros in ~tech
stu2b50 Link ParentIt's more the reverse: why not have a notch? Screen > bezel, after all. I'll take more screen. More screen is always nice. The main demerit would be increased engineer cost and supply cost, but we...It's more the reverse: why not have a notch? Screen > bezel, after all. I'll take more screen. More screen is always nice. The main demerit would be increased engineer cost and supply cost, but we have no insight into those.
It helps that macOS works well with the notch. There's always a menu bar on top anyway, and the resolution below the notch is still 16:10 - you just get more screen.
-
Comment on New MacBook Pros in ~tech
stu2b50 Link ParentThe fade to black will probably be a stopgap, or a default. Apple will expose APIs in their UI framework to let developers fill that space in full screen if they want to, but while no apps support...The fade to black will probably be a stopgap, or a default. Apple will expose APIs in their UI framework to let developers fill that space in full screen if they want to, but while no apps support it it’ll just become a bezel again.
-
Comment on Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack Details ($50/year) in ~games
stu2b50 Link ParentYep, it's not like it's rocket science. In the end, my anticipated amount of enjoyment from it is certainly worth $50/yr for me. It is a substantial increase over the prior online subscription,...Yep, it's not like it's rocket science. In the end, my anticipated amount of enjoyment from it is certainly worth $50/yr for me. It is a substantial increase over the prior online subscription, but with the prior subscription only costing $2/month that's more about how weirdly low that was priced.
The advantage over emulators is polish, being able to play it portably on an actual portable console, and online play - I'm sure there's janky ways to get that to work on PC emulators, but y'know, you kinda need other people to play with you to make multiplayer a thing and I'm not about to try and make the effort of both figuring how to set it up for myself and explaining to other people.
Not to mention I'd grab the AC expansion anyway, so the effective cost is even less.
Of course, I can only speak for myself, but it seems easily worth the money to me.
-
Comment on Introducing the PinePhone Pro in ~tech
stu2b50 LinkSeems cool. Pine is definitely the Linux phone maker that has done the best at actually shipping usable products for somewhat reasonable prices (cough librem 5 cough), although in terms of...Seems cool. Pine is definitely the Linux phone maker that has done the best at actually shipping usable products for somewhat reasonable prices (cough librem 5 cough), although in terms of usability I think they say it the best on their own product page
If you depend on proprietary mainstream mobile messenger applications, banking applications, use loyalty or travel apps, consume DRM media, or play mobile video games on your fruit or Android smartphone, then the PinePhone Pro is likely not for you.
So, most people.
Having tinkered briefly with PinePhone's before (never owned one, but played with a friends), honestly the hardware is "fine" for the most part, it's the software that really hurts. I'm not particularly fond of any of the linux DEs on a desktop, forget mobile where bad UI goes from slightly inconvenient to infuriating with the loss of precision of a touch vs a mouse pointer.
But, better hardware never hurts.
-
Comment on Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack Details ($50/year) in ~games
stu2b50 LinkNot a terrible price for what you get. I'm probably going to do the upgrade from the $24/year annual plan I have now.Not a terrible price for what you get. I'm probably going to do the upgrade from the $24/year annual plan I have now.
-
Comment on Amazon copied products and rigged search results to promote its own brands, documents show in ~tech
stu2b50 Link ParentMoney is fungible, there is no difference between being paid $500 less and getting paid the same amount but then being fined $500. Of course, I'm not saying it's not a net profit for Amazon to...Money is fungible, there is no difference between being paid $500 less and getting paid the same amount but then being fined $500.
Of course, I'm not saying it's not a net profit for Amazon to make their own generics, that's evident by the fact that they do make their own generics for all kinds of items, and Amazon tends to do things that make money, but you need to consider opportunity costs as real. The real advantage Amazon has is that it, like other retailers, has purchasing data from other suppliers to strike where the iron is hot at any given time. The fact that they also run the auctions to their search results/shelves is moot.
In a world where, say, a recommended spot on Amazon search results has a market value of $20,000/month for a commodity item, an Amazon that chooses to give one of their biddable recommended spots to themselves is an Amazon that has $20,000 less dollars. Apart from auction and other misc fees, which Amazon would dodge, this is functionally the same as an Amazon that has to pay a 3rd party $20,000 for a spot; in either case, the net result is that Amazon, by making this choice, has $20,000 less dollars than the Amazon that did not make the choice.
I don’t think these are mutually exclusive things. Game developing isn’t something that just scales linearly with manpower. Not only are different resources more or less necessary at different times (for instance, developers are lightly involved in the preproduction phase, whereas they are heavily involved when development starts), but too many cooks and all.