This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There have been some disputes about whether to include embedded tweets in this article (in addition to simple descriptions of the tweet in the text) and which tweets to embed. Currently the embedded tweets are Musk's "Gamestonk" and Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of Robinhood. I argue that AOC's tweet, or any other reaction by a politican/other major figure, should not be embedded because there is such a high volume of these, and nothing causes AOC's reaction to be more significant than, for example, Elizabeth Warren's. Musk's tweet is more unique because it had an demonstrable effect on the stock rise, however it still may be unnecessary to embed because it is so short that it can be completely written in the text. I'm making this section so there isn't an edit war with deleting and re-adding tweets. Irish Birdcatcher ( talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Should embedded tweets by Elon Musk ( diff) and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ( diff) be included in this article?-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Tagging likely participants (removed the level 3 title to improve readability of the RfC discussion -- JBchrch ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)): ( AllegedlyHuman, Hakken, Loganmac, Samsara, Murtaza.aliakbar, JShark, Zvikorn.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand @ AllegedlyHuman:’s argument that, out of the criticisms of Robinhood by politicians and celebrities, AOC’s response may be the most notable *tweet*. But tweets are not the only type of response they can be embedded. And I don’t think AOC’s tweet is unique or effectual enough to be embedded on its own (ie no rise in GME price afterwards, no new turn of opinion against robinhood because everyone already was criticizing them). Irish Birdcatcher ( talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Gamestonk!! https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/" is informative enough to need the embedding. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that the consensus of this RfC is to keep both embedded tweets? Also, I propose to close the RfC, since the last comment was close to 24h ago.-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested Change: In section "Short selling and short squeezes" Add a 3rd paragraph:
Short interest was unusually high in GameStop stock, with short interest reaching 140%. Short interest levels have only exceeded 100% of ANY company’s float 15 times in the last 10 years[1]. In fact, before the GameStop short squeeze, many market participants thought that shorting more than 100% of a stock was impossible[2].
Sources: [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2021/02/10/meme-stock-saga-officially-over-gamestop-short-interest-plunged-70-amid-20-billion-loss/?sh=16c4080ab213 [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20it%20might,for%20short%2Dsellers%20to%20get.&text=However%2C%20even%20without%20a%20naked,short%20interest%20to%20exceed%20100%25. Edlee93 ( talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Samsara, I disagree with your latest : you removed valuable and interesting information that is not contained or presented in the embedded tweet.-- JBchrch ( talk) 12:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
More data is coming in, and the narratives are shifting a bit to focus on the big players benefiting from this. The article is still written from the week old narrative of little guys vs. the system. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Harizotoh9, as of this morning it seems to me like most mainstream sources are still writing this story from the perspective of retail vs. institutional (although I do agree that the narrative is beginning to change) : WSJ, FT, WaPo, NYT. What do you think of expanding the " Gains of existing shareholders and third parties" section?-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The big players gains is under-represented in the article. Reuters and CNBC have articles on it and I'm sure more do as well. As time goes on more data will come through so it's good to keep updating the article and keep it up to date with the latest information. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not disputing that. However these sources provide interesting data and information. They aren’t just the author’s opinion. JBchrch ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding another key article. This is a theme playing out in more and more articles. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The article is unclear on the distinction between the general investment strategy of "going short" (betting that price of asset will decline) and "short selling" (borrowing a stock then selling it), which is just one of the ways one can short a stock. In particular, it's not clear at all if Melvin was short selling the stock. According to MarketWatch [12] at least a good chunk of their short investments were through owning put options on GameStop. With those, the potential loss is capped. And this is what they announced which prompted the short squeeze. This article however assumes that they were short selling the stock. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted this by Tresznjewski. I think extending the table beyond February 5 is not extremely useful, since the period between February 6 and February 23 is not very notable in terms of price changes and volatility. The price became notable again only on February 24, which is why a § February 24 surge section was added. Extending the table also affects the readability of the article, and we should try not to extend it beyond what is necessary. Comments are welcome.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a second rise and in the Feb 24th section there should be a second table perhaps. It may be that the stock will be on a rollercoaster for months, so one chart will show the most significant rise and fall, and we may need another chart for like 6 months to a 1 year. It all depends how it plays out. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The stock touched $180 after hours. Thoughts? Thanoscar21 talk contribs 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There was a short squeeze in that it's done. There may be another one and if it happens it will be added once it's reported. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
How can you call it a short squeeze and how can you call it over? What are the criteria for both claims? There's also rumors that the shorts right now are hidden in ETFs containing GameStop stocks beeing shorted. Please source your claims. Media have called it a short squeeze but there's also a possibility that they have no idea what's going on. -- Tresznjewski ( talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Call options enhanced the short squeeze via a gamma squeeze.
Generally a short squeeze is more likely to occur when a stock’s market capitalization is small (relative to the activity). (This also makes short squeezes in widely traded commodities or Currencies more difficult).
Gamma squeezes are more likely to enhance short squeezes when call options are initially inexpensive, particularly when they have a low implied volatility. (This makes it harder also to immediately return to the same stocks because options will be much more expensive).
For an example, the Reddit user below compiled a list of low call Option implied volatility stocks with Market Cap data.
Assuming that the data is correct, this would suggest that a company like Hershey’s or Dollar tree would be at more risk of a short squeeze with gamma squeeze enhancement than Amazon for example because of their low market capitalization and low call option implied volatility.
Again, this is ONLY An EXAMPLE! (Obviously NOT to be acted upon!)
https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/kcfg47/weekend_iv_report_tickers_with_low_implied/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:21DA:F091:5C1:6EA8:908F ( talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and citations to reddit forum posts are not valid citations. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As the hearing is going on, a reminder to all editors that any of the PDFs here are in the public domain. These could be useful for breaking up text and elaborating on sections that need it. I believe video of the event created by Congress would also be in the public domain (so long as it's not the version on, say, CNN). AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with addition to the article by Harizotoh9:
PiiQ Media found very similar daily start and stop patterns in the GameStop-related posts that were a possible sign of artificial activity. Speicifc phrases associted with the activity were "hold the line", "gme" and "gamestop. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The PiiQ story has to be given WP:DUE weight (which is what I had attempted to do here): this is only one report by a small company, on a story where a many people have published theories, conjectures and analyses. Also, the sources cited are not sufficient in this specific context: Newsweek is not generally reliable and CNBC Indonesia is not an appropriate source for an event that has happened in the US and is extensively covered by US sources. Currently, the only "good" source covering this report is the Reuters release cited in the article, but in my view this does not warrant a full paragraph describing PiiQ Media's findings.-- JBchrch ( talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Later analysis by cyber security company PiiQ Media of social media posts suggested thatand remove the rest?-- JBchrch ( talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)thousands ofautomated bots may have hyped GameStop stock, Dogecoin, and other stocks, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.
There is no consensus. I added it originally, then Rauisuchian added it again, with even more detail and only removed it after seeing it was already there. I then merged the two posts because theirs was better written. "Thousands" is mentioned by the Telegraph and it should be there to get some sort of scale to what they are saying. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If the definition of a short squeeze is the Short sellers being forced to buy back the shorted stocks but the article doesn't even mention this has happened or who would have done this and the stock is still heavily shorted, how can you call this article the short squeeze then? -- Tresznjewski ( talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
GME Hearing, Plotkin admitted the jump in price wasn't due to shorts covering! Change the first sentence to say gamma squeeze. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=17723&v=RfEuNHVPc_k&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=U.S.HouseCommitteeonFinancialServices Plotkin HIMSELF said it was not due to shorts covering! If shorts were not covering, then it means it's NOT a short squeeze caused by a massive buying pressure from shorters all fighting to buy shares that were illiquid! Convolutionx ( talk) 06:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a page for improving the article, not a forum for discussing the topic. Do you have any third party reliable sources that say this? This looks like WP:Original research based on testimony. People are free to speculate but WP:NOTHERE. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source describing the second and current surge as a gamma squeeze. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2021/03/10/gamestop-the-second-surgeanatomy-of-a-gamma-swarm/?sh=6e4c9a364225 St.nerol ( talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow wikipedians! The Gamestop stock has been rising since 24 february, the rates at which its growing are really high. Can a table be added for the growth after 24 february? Powering everyone ( talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ mfb i think you are right, a graph would be ideal at the current time, but if the stock keeps growing, we might have to think about a table. Powering everyone ( talk) 06:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there should be a second graph as it is a second separate bubble. Right now it looks like it's on the decline. And maybe a third graph that covers both? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The good example may be Commodore(company making e.g. Amiga), in 1991(!) the users/small shareholders wanted to buy the stocks to control the company, because they were thinking, that it is bad directed. However the stacks rise from 4$ and then go down, rise etc. Read "Electronic Games" 8/1994 page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.67.52 ( talk) 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Buidhe ( talk · contribs) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I am still seeing major ongoing edits and new developments in this saga since the article was put up for GA review again, meaning the article is not sufficiently stable for GA review. Please wait 6 months for things to settle before renominating. ( t · c) buidhe 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is now dated because it doesn't include enough info about the subsequent rise. I am adding an Update template. For instance, the graph is out of date. I'm updating the portion about "Decline in value" to mention that some retail investors lost if they didn't continue to hold Netdragon ( talk) 12:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You are right aquillion but i have another problem. Why is there no consensus over the current short squeeze? Powering everyone ( talk) 10:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Elli Im saying that in the section "Resurgance from february 24" it is written there is no consensus over what caused the second resurgance. The source that says that is over a month old. Powering everyone ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe this is stable enough to be a Good Article now. Not so much because of edit warring ( WP:GAFAIL #4), although there has been some, but because the situation is too recent and ongoing to be stable (GAFAIL #1, a long way from meeting GA criterion 5). The main events may have been over after January, but in late February the NYT reported that there were nearly 50 ongoing lawsuits against Robinhood over this ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/robinhood-gamestop.html), two weeks ago GameStop reported a plan for major changes in management structure ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-provides-corporate-governance-130000470.html), and new analysis of what happened and rule-making to address what happened is still coming out. I think we need to wait long enough to have some perspective on the situation before setting this in stone as a good article. Otherwise, either we would pre-empt the addition of later developments (if editors use the GA status as an excuse to prevent changes to the article) or those changes would make any GA review quickly obsolete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This is basically censorship at this point. EVERY OTHER ONGOING EVENT gets tagged as such and gets news updates. This one gets locked and has its timeline end months ago. It's in the hedge funds best interest to keep pretending this is past, yet current news articles found with a google search for "gme stock news" shows this is absolutely ongoing. Do I really need to google this and paste a bunch of links in? Doubt anyone will even care, I mean hell who cared about the housing crisis either, may as well not even have an article!
Honestly, this REAKS of censorship and I'd be surprised if those reversing all the edits containing useful data weren't employed by a HF. I mean, the paid shills are abundant on reddit, who not on wikipedia too? Or is wikipedia in such need for money that a hedge fund can literally pay for wikipedia edits? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Where's the "ongoing event" protection/tag? Where'd literally any event from the past few months? The deleted edits look like wikipedia articles, but the article itself looks like a carefully edited Citadel news release. I thought wikipedia wasn't supposed to be a place for companies to control the narrative? Then again wikipedia HAS been circling the drain moderation-wise, quality content moderated away due to come subrolule, but garbage edits and the 1%'s stories are apparently what Wikipedia is now.
Honestly, are we really at the point where a hedge fund can pay for edits, or is Citadel hiri!g wikipedia mods? Maybe the shillbots have infested wikipedia like they did Reddit?
Regardless, this REAKS of censorship and bad faith editing. A key point of this whole thing is that the hedge funds have been caught REPEATEDLY manipulating the news and paying ashills, bot writers, whoever will go spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Has this been addressed here? Are the mods and editors with "approved" changes recieving orders from a hedge fund?
Also, fun how my first post was INSTANTLY deleted after "successfully posting". Wonder how long this one will last? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm0n3y34 ( talk • contribs)
I'm speaking to details like the timeline, not the whole article. There's missing info ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I remove the sentence "as of Feb 25, there hasn't been any consensus on the current surge" in the "resurgence from Feb 24" section. The sentence is outdated and I don't think it should be put in an article about an ongoing incident. Powering everyone ( talk) 11:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch I think you are right, but I think I got the perfect news source that specifies the cause of the current surge. [1] Powering everyone ( talk)
JBchrch ( talk), welp I couldn't find a reliable source so i guess we should put that statement.
@ JBchrch ( talk) So, should we put the statement "reports could not identify a specific cause for the current surge"? Powering everyone ( talk) 5:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well.
This sentence in the lead has been bugging me for a long time and I finally mustered the courage to talk about it. I have two issues:
in reaction tobrokerages halting the buying of GME? I think this sentence is copied from a sentence in § Cryptocurrencies that states
In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the combined market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies increased to over US$1 trillion, with Dogecoin's value increasing over 800 percent. [1] [2] [3]. I can't find the
in reaction topart in the CNBC and AV Club articles, and I don't have a subscription to The Independent.
References
the total market capitalization ofa good language? Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to write
the price of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well? -- JBchrch ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
{{current|section|date=May 2021}}
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SvenL ( talk) 09:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
current}}
template at the top of the article, please note that this template is not intended to stay more than a single day on any article, and should only be used when there is intense editing activity by multiple editors. Since this story is now developing very calmly and since the article is pretty stable, it's not appropriate to add it back up.
JBchrch
talk 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you change the aftermath portion of your article, or change this title to specifically the January squeeze and prepare to do follow ups.
In the aftermath portion you should include how investors moves into different subreddits and such as r/Superstonk and r/GME beyone the wallstreetbets and that the squeeze is still on going. How the price decrease in February from $330-40 was done with artifical shares that have failed to delivery making them naked shorts. Oh and that this thing is still going on and will rip some more after the share holders meeting. Prepare to state that the company Game Stop, recieved 200% of its issued shares in votes in the most recent stock holder meeting. OH and that the shorts haven't and have no intention of covering so the. Mentality is to hold above and beyond a margin call on the short side. 178.78.99.193 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
A paper mentioned in Econophysics#Basic_tools foresaw the "inevitability of collusion" of a group such as WallStreetBets when demand increases with increasing price, as during a short squeeze. Would this link Econophysics#Basic_tools be a good candidate as an entry in the "See Also" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2812:3800:4d95:65f1:88ed:3484 ( talk) 02:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per request above, this is an edit request in the correct format. I propose changing the following text in the section Possible causes from
to
References
EsquireHowWallStreetBets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BloombergHowWallStreetBets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This event is still ongoing and therefor it should be treated as an ungoing event such as the COVID Pandemic. Instead of the written past tense. 83.128.94.158 ( talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This kind of thing would definitely need consensus as it's changing the entire article. The article seems to be talking about January-March anyway, I can't find anything from June or May. --
Ferien (
talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AMC ticker symbol (AMC) not ( AMCX) 2601:14A:4500:45E0:35C0:A7E7:1B38:A7E1 ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No short positions were covered in January the price was due to simple buying pressure. Why would you lie unless you're paid off? The CC released an article clearly stating that no short positions were covered in January therefore there was not a short squeeze. Your misinforming hundreds of millions of people on purpose. 2600:1008:B024:6A83:4629:1B42:3D52:1EBB ( talk) 18:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I was reading the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021. This report included information regarding the "short squeeze" of GameStop Corp that happened this year. I read the whole report and found something interesting.
The SEC reported that there was actually no evidence that a short squeeze occurred. In fact, there was also no evidence of a gamma squeeze occurring. I found every single line in the report that states this and listed it below:
1. Alternatively, others contended that unusually high levels of short interest in GME presented the potential for a coordinated “short squeeze.” 2. GameStop had already started to receive attention on Reddit in 2019, including in discussions about short squeezes. That attention grew throughout 2020. 3. Given the high levels of short interest, together with the price movements in GameStop, a natural question is the degree to which these price movements arose from a “short squeeze.” Indeed, some of the meme stock trading was described in news coverage as an act of rebellion against short-selling professional investors who had targeted GameStop and other stocks. 4. While the price of GameStop did eventually fall, one could ask to what extent a short squeeze lay behind its price increase dynamics. 5. Another possible explanation could be a “gamma squeeze,” which occurs when market makers purchase a stock to hedge the risk associated with writing call options on that stock, in turn putting further upward pressure on the underlying stock price. As noted above, though, staff did not find evidence of a gamma squeeze in GME during January 2021. 6. These observations by themselves are not consistent with a gamma squeeze. 7. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.
I am addressing this is because I read the Wikipedia article regarding the "GameStop Short Squeeze" and it appears to be fairly inconsistent with the U.S. SEC official report. There was no evidence of a short squeeze and the price movement was solely from retail buying pressure. I think it needs to be corrected because it gives the false narrative that a short squeeze already happened and that short sellers covered their positions. As far I can tell, we actually do not know if they covered - opening the potential for an actual short squeeze to happen.
Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Source: https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomSnatcher ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not trying to offend anyone, I love the work the people of wikipedia do. But a short squeeze forces the price up by forcing (squeezing) short buyers to buy the stock. But according to the sec report on this event there was no buying back of stocks by short buyers 178.228.130.23 ( talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There have been some disputes about whether to include embedded tweets in this article (in addition to simple descriptions of the tweet in the text) and which tweets to embed. Currently the embedded tweets are Musk's "Gamestonk" and Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of Robinhood. I argue that AOC's tweet, or any other reaction by a politican/other major figure, should not be embedded because there is such a high volume of these, and nothing causes AOC's reaction to be more significant than, for example, Elizabeth Warren's. Musk's tweet is more unique because it had an demonstrable effect on the stock rise, however it still may be unnecessary to embed because it is so short that it can be completely written in the text. I'm making this section so there isn't an edit war with deleting and re-adding tweets. Irish Birdcatcher ( talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Should embedded tweets by Elon Musk ( diff) and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ( diff) be included in this article?-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Tagging likely participants (removed the level 3 title to improve readability of the RfC discussion -- JBchrch ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)): ( AllegedlyHuman, Hakken, Loganmac, Samsara, Murtaza.aliakbar, JShark, Zvikorn.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand @ AllegedlyHuman:’s argument that, out of the criticisms of Robinhood by politicians and celebrities, AOC’s response may be the most notable *tweet*. But tweets are not the only type of response they can be embedded. And I don’t think AOC’s tweet is unique or effectual enough to be embedded on its own (ie no rise in GME price afterwards, no new turn of opinion against robinhood because everyone already was criticizing them). Irish Birdcatcher ( talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Gamestonk!! https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/" is informative enough to need the embedding. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that the consensus of this RfC is to keep both embedded tweets? Also, I propose to close the RfC, since the last comment was close to 24h ago.-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggested Change: In section "Short selling and short squeezes" Add a 3rd paragraph:
Short interest was unusually high in GameStop stock, with short interest reaching 140%. Short interest levels have only exceeded 100% of ANY company’s float 15 times in the last 10 years[1]. In fact, before the GameStop short squeeze, many market participants thought that shorting more than 100% of a stock was impossible[2].
Sources: [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2021/02/10/meme-stock-saga-officially-over-gamestop-short-interest-plunged-70-amid-20-billion-loss/?sh=16c4080ab213 [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20it%20might,for%20short%2Dsellers%20to%20get.&text=However%2C%20even%20without%20a%20naked,short%20interest%20to%20exceed%20100%25. Edlee93 ( talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Samsara, I disagree with your latest : you removed valuable and interesting information that is not contained or presented in the embedded tweet.-- JBchrch ( talk) 12:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
More data is coming in, and the narratives are shifting a bit to focus on the big players benefiting from this. The article is still written from the week old narrative of little guys vs. the system. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Harizotoh9, as of this morning it seems to me like most mainstream sources are still writing this story from the perspective of retail vs. institutional (although I do agree that the narrative is beginning to change) : WSJ, FT, WaPo, NYT. What do you think of expanding the " Gains of existing shareholders and third parties" section?-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The big players gains is under-represented in the article. Reuters and CNBC have articles on it and I'm sure more do as well. As time goes on more data will come through so it's good to keep updating the article and keep it up to date with the latest information. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not disputing that. However these sources provide interesting data and information. They aren’t just the author’s opinion. JBchrch ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding another key article. This is a theme playing out in more and more articles. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The article is unclear on the distinction between the general investment strategy of "going short" (betting that price of asset will decline) and "short selling" (borrowing a stock then selling it), which is just one of the ways one can short a stock. In particular, it's not clear at all if Melvin was short selling the stock. According to MarketWatch [12] at least a good chunk of their short investments were through owning put options on GameStop. With those, the potential loss is capped. And this is what they announced which prompted the short squeeze. This article however assumes that they were short selling the stock. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted this by Tresznjewski. I think extending the table beyond February 5 is not extremely useful, since the period between February 6 and February 23 is not very notable in terms of price changes and volatility. The price became notable again only on February 24, which is why a § February 24 surge section was added. Extending the table also affects the readability of the article, and we should try not to extend it beyond what is necessary. Comments are welcome.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a second rise and in the Feb 24th section there should be a second table perhaps. It may be that the stock will be on a rollercoaster for months, so one chart will show the most significant rise and fall, and we may need another chart for like 6 months to a 1 year. It all depends how it plays out. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The stock touched $180 after hours. Thoughts? Thanoscar21 talk contribs 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There was a short squeeze in that it's done. There may be another one and if it happens it will be added once it's reported. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
How can you call it a short squeeze and how can you call it over? What are the criteria for both claims? There's also rumors that the shorts right now are hidden in ETFs containing GameStop stocks beeing shorted. Please source your claims. Media have called it a short squeeze but there's also a possibility that they have no idea what's going on. -- Tresznjewski ( talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Call options enhanced the short squeeze via a gamma squeeze.
Generally a short squeeze is more likely to occur when a stock’s market capitalization is small (relative to the activity). (This also makes short squeezes in widely traded commodities or Currencies more difficult).
Gamma squeezes are more likely to enhance short squeezes when call options are initially inexpensive, particularly when they have a low implied volatility. (This makes it harder also to immediately return to the same stocks because options will be much more expensive).
For an example, the Reddit user below compiled a list of low call Option implied volatility stocks with Market Cap data.
Assuming that the data is correct, this would suggest that a company like Hershey’s or Dollar tree would be at more risk of a short squeeze with gamma squeeze enhancement than Amazon for example because of their low market capitalization and low call option implied volatility.
Again, this is ONLY An EXAMPLE! (Obviously NOT to be acted upon!)
https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/kcfg47/weekend_iv_report_tickers_with_low_implied/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:21DA:F091:5C1:6EA8:908F ( talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and citations to reddit forum posts are not valid citations. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As the hearing is going on, a reminder to all editors that any of the PDFs here are in the public domain. These could be useful for breaking up text and elaborating on sections that need it. I believe video of the event created by Congress would also be in the public domain (so long as it's not the version on, say, CNN). AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with addition to the article by Harizotoh9:
PiiQ Media found very similar daily start and stop patterns in the GameStop-related posts that were a possible sign of artificial activity. Speicifc phrases associted with the activity were "hold the line", "gme" and "gamestop. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The PiiQ story has to be given WP:DUE weight (which is what I had attempted to do here): this is only one report by a small company, on a story where a many people have published theories, conjectures and analyses. Also, the sources cited are not sufficient in this specific context: Newsweek is not generally reliable and CNBC Indonesia is not an appropriate source for an event that has happened in the US and is extensively covered by US sources. Currently, the only "good" source covering this report is the Reuters release cited in the article, but in my view this does not warrant a full paragraph describing PiiQ Media's findings.-- JBchrch ( talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Later analysis by cyber security company PiiQ Media of social media posts suggested thatand remove the rest?-- JBchrch ( talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)thousands ofautomated bots may have hyped GameStop stock, Dogecoin, and other stocks, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.
There is no consensus. I added it originally, then Rauisuchian added it again, with even more detail and only removed it after seeing it was already there. I then merged the two posts because theirs was better written. "Thousands" is mentioned by the Telegraph and it should be there to get some sort of scale to what they are saying. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If the definition of a short squeeze is the Short sellers being forced to buy back the shorted stocks but the article doesn't even mention this has happened or who would have done this and the stock is still heavily shorted, how can you call this article the short squeeze then? -- Tresznjewski ( talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
GME Hearing, Plotkin admitted the jump in price wasn't due to shorts covering! Change the first sentence to say gamma squeeze. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=17723&v=RfEuNHVPc_k&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=U.S.HouseCommitteeonFinancialServices Plotkin HIMSELF said it was not due to shorts covering! If shorts were not covering, then it means it's NOT a short squeeze caused by a massive buying pressure from shorters all fighting to buy shares that were illiquid! Convolutionx ( talk) 06:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a page for improving the article, not a forum for discussing the topic. Do you have any third party reliable sources that say this? This looks like WP:Original research based on testimony. People are free to speculate but WP:NOTHERE. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source describing the second and current surge as a gamma squeeze. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2021/03/10/gamestop-the-second-surgeanatomy-of-a-gamma-swarm/?sh=6e4c9a364225 St.nerol ( talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow wikipedians! The Gamestop stock has been rising since 24 february, the rates at which its growing are really high. Can a table be added for the growth after 24 february? Powering everyone ( talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ mfb i think you are right, a graph would be ideal at the current time, but if the stock keeps growing, we might have to think about a table. Powering everyone ( talk) 06:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there should be a second graph as it is a second separate bubble. Right now it looks like it's on the decline. And maybe a third graph that covers both? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The good example may be Commodore(company making e.g. Amiga), in 1991(!) the users/small shareholders wanted to buy the stocks to control the company, because they were thinking, that it is bad directed. However the stacks rise from 4$ and then go down, rise etc. Read "Electronic Games" 8/1994 page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.67.52 ( talk) 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Buidhe ( talk · contribs) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I am still seeing major ongoing edits and new developments in this saga since the article was put up for GA review again, meaning the article is not sufficiently stable for GA review. Please wait 6 months for things to settle before renominating. ( t · c) buidhe 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is now dated because it doesn't include enough info about the subsequent rise. I am adding an Update template. For instance, the graph is out of date. I'm updating the portion about "Decline in value" to mention that some retail investors lost if they didn't continue to hold Netdragon ( talk) 12:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You are right aquillion but i have another problem. Why is there no consensus over the current short squeeze? Powering everyone ( talk) 10:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Elli Im saying that in the section "Resurgance from february 24" it is written there is no consensus over what caused the second resurgance. The source that says that is over a month old. Powering everyone ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe this is stable enough to be a Good Article now. Not so much because of edit warring ( WP:GAFAIL #4), although there has been some, but because the situation is too recent and ongoing to be stable (GAFAIL #1, a long way from meeting GA criterion 5). The main events may have been over after January, but in late February the NYT reported that there were nearly 50 ongoing lawsuits against Robinhood over this ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/robinhood-gamestop.html), two weeks ago GameStop reported a plan for major changes in management structure ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-provides-corporate-governance-130000470.html), and new analysis of what happened and rule-making to address what happened is still coming out. I think we need to wait long enough to have some perspective on the situation before setting this in stone as a good article. Otherwise, either we would pre-empt the addition of later developments (if editors use the GA status as an excuse to prevent changes to the article) or those changes would make any GA review quickly obsolete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This is basically censorship at this point. EVERY OTHER ONGOING EVENT gets tagged as such and gets news updates. This one gets locked and has its timeline end months ago. It's in the hedge funds best interest to keep pretending this is past, yet current news articles found with a google search for "gme stock news" shows this is absolutely ongoing. Do I really need to google this and paste a bunch of links in? Doubt anyone will even care, I mean hell who cared about the housing crisis either, may as well not even have an article!
Honestly, this REAKS of censorship and I'd be surprised if those reversing all the edits containing useful data weren't employed by a HF. I mean, the paid shills are abundant on reddit, who not on wikipedia too? Or is wikipedia in such need for money that a hedge fund can literally pay for wikipedia edits? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Where's the "ongoing event" protection/tag? Where'd literally any event from the past few months? The deleted edits look like wikipedia articles, but the article itself looks like a carefully edited Citadel news release. I thought wikipedia wasn't supposed to be a place for companies to control the narrative? Then again wikipedia HAS been circling the drain moderation-wise, quality content moderated away due to come subrolule, but garbage edits and the 1%'s stories are apparently what Wikipedia is now.
Honestly, are we really at the point where a hedge fund can pay for edits, or is Citadel hiri!g wikipedia mods? Maybe the shillbots have infested wikipedia like they did Reddit?
Regardless, this REAKS of censorship and bad faith editing. A key point of this whole thing is that the hedge funds have been caught REPEATEDLY manipulating the news and paying ashills, bot writers, whoever will go spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Has this been addressed here? Are the mods and editors with "approved" changes recieving orders from a hedge fund?
Also, fun how my first post was INSTANTLY deleted after "successfully posting". Wonder how long this one will last? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm0n3y34 ( talk • contribs)
I'm speaking to details like the timeline, not the whole article. There's missing info ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I remove the sentence "as of Feb 25, there hasn't been any consensus on the current surge" in the "resurgence from Feb 24" section. The sentence is outdated and I don't think it should be put in an article about an ongoing incident. Powering everyone ( talk) 11:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch I think you are right, but I think I got the perfect news source that specifies the cause of the current surge. [1] Powering everyone ( talk)
JBchrch ( talk), welp I couldn't find a reliable source so i guess we should put that statement.
@ JBchrch ( talk) So, should we put the statement "reports could not identify a specific cause for the current surge"? Powering everyone ( talk) 5:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well.
This sentence in the lead has been bugging me for a long time and I finally mustered the courage to talk about it. I have two issues:
in reaction tobrokerages halting the buying of GME? I think this sentence is copied from a sentence in § Cryptocurrencies that states
In reaction to brokerages halting the buying of GameStop and other securities, the combined market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies increased to over US$1 trillion, with Dogecoin's value increasing over 800 percent. [1] [2] [3]. I can't find the
in reaction topart in the CNBC and AV Club articles, and I don't have a subscription to The Independent.
References
the total market capitalization ofa good language? Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to write
the price of cryptocurrencies and metal futures increased as well? -- JBchrch ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
{{current|section|date=May 2021}}
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SvenL ( talk) 09:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
current}}
template at the top of the article, please note that this template is not intended to stay more than a single day on any article, and should only be used when there is intense editing activity by multiple editors. Since this story is now developing very calmly and since the article is pretty stable, it's not appropriate to add it back up.
JBchrch
talk 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you change the aftermath portion of your article, or change this title to specifically the January squeeze and prepare to do follow ups.
In the aftermath portion you should include how investors moves into different subreddits and such as r/Superstonk and r/GME beyone the wallstreetbets and that the squeeze is still on going. How the price decrease in February from $330-40 was done with artifical shares that have failed to delivery making them naked shorts. Oh and that this thing is still going on and will rip some more after the share holders meeting. Prepare to state that the company Game Stop, recieved 200% of its issued shares in votes in the most recent stock holder meeting. OH and that the shorts haven't and have no intention of covering so the. Mentality is to hold above and beyond a margin call on the short side. 178.78.99.193 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
A paper mentioned in Econophysics#Basic_tools foresaw the "inevitability of collusion" of a group such as WallStreetBets when demand increases with increasing price, as during a short squeeze. Would this link Econophysics#Basic_tools be a good candidate as an entry in the "See Also" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2812:3800:4d95:65f1:88ed:3484 ( talk) 02:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per request above, this is an edit request in the correct format. I propose changing the following text in the section Possible causes from
to
References
EsquireHowWallStreetBets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BloombergHowWallStreetBets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This event is still ongoing and therefor it should be treated as an ungoing event such as the COVID Pandemic. Instead of the written past tense. 83.128.94.158 ( talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This kind of thing would definitely need consensus as it's changing the entire article. The article seems to be talking about January-March anyway, I can't find anything from June or May. --
Ferien (
talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AMC ticker symbol (AMC) not ( AMCX) 2601:14A:4500:45E0:35C0:A7E7:1B38:A7E1 ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
GameStop short squeeze has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No short positions were covered in January the price was due to simple buying pressure. Why would you lie unless you're paid off? The CC released an article clearly stating that no short positions were covered in January therefore there was not a short squeeze. Your misinforming hundreds of millions of people on purpose. 2600:1008:B024:6A83:4629:1B42:3D52:1EBB ( talk) 18:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I was reading the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021. This report included information regarding the "short squeeze" of GameStop Corp that happened this year. I read the whole report and found something interesting.
The SEC reported that there was actually no evidence that a short squeeze occurred. In fact, there was also no evidence of a gamma squeeze occurring. I found every single line in the report that states this and listed it below:
1. Alternatively, others contended that unusually high levels of short interest in GME presented the potential for a coordinated “short squeeze.” 2. GameStop had already started to receive attention on Reddit in 2019, including in discussions about short squeezes. That attention grew throughout 2020. 3. Given the high levels of short interest, together with the price movements in GameStop, a natural question is the degree to which these price movements arose from a “short squeeze.” Indeed, some of the meme stock trading was described in news coverage as an act of rebellion against short-selling professional investors who had targeted GameStop and other stocks. 4. While the price of GameStop did eventually fall, one could ask to what extent a short squeeze lay behind its price increase dynamics. 5. Another possible explanation could be a “gamma squeeze,” which occurs when market makers purchase a stock to hedge the risk associated with writing call options on that stock, in turn putting further upward pressure on the underlying stock price. As noted above, though, staff did not find evidence of a gamma squeeze in GME during January 2021. 6. These observations by themselves are not consistent with a gamma squeeze. 7. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.
I am addressing this is because I read the Wikipedia article regarding the "GameStop Short Squeeze" and it appears to be fairly inconsistent with the U.S. SEC official report. There was no evidence of a short squeeze and the price movement was solely from retail buying pressure. I think it needs to be corrected because it gives the false narrative that a short squeeze already happened and that short sellers covered their positions. As far I can tell, we actually do not know if they covered - opening the potential for an actual short squeeze to happen.
Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Source: https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomSnatcher ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not trying to offend anyone, I love the work the people of wikipedia do. But a short squeeze forces the price up by forcing (squeezing) short buyers to buy the stock. But according to the sec report on this event there was no buying back of stocks by short buyers 178.228.130.23 ( talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)