Who is Keith Gill, "Amateur" Trader or Registered Rep?

You can't short more stock than is available which is what was happening here.

It's not just illegal, it's impossible. You can't sell more of a stock than actually exists.

And yet that is what was happening. If it was impossible it wouldn't have had to been made illegal.

Read the article, that isn't what's happening. You don't understand how "shorting a stock" works.

You can only make money shorting a stock if you physically have stock you can sell.


Naked Shorting is Illegal: So How the Hell was GameStop 140% Short?

There are a fixed number of shares for every publicly traded company. Some of those shares are reserve (cannot be traded). Of the rest outstanding shares, some of those shares (most in fact) are long, not for sale at the current market rate.

You cannot borrow and sell more shares that their are outstanding in the market.

A trader could 'borrow' some shares from another trader and immediately sell them back and borrow them again. However, for a deal to be legitimate (and for the original trader to make a profit) ALL of the borrowed stock has to repurchased at the lower price and returned to the lending trader.

If there is no intention to return the borrowed stock that is not shortselling. That isn't even corruption (corruption expects to make a gain) that is just stupidity. There is no way to make a profit from that -- that is defrauding the market.

Nope. It's using the rules to an advantage.

Please explain the advantage? If you can't return the borrowed stock, you commit fraud and go to jail (or get a fine). How is that an advantage?
 
You can't short more stock than is available which is what was happening here.

It's not just illegal, it's impossible. You can't sell more of a stock than actually exists.

And yet that is what was happening. If it was impossible it wouldn't have had to been made illegal.

Read the article, that isn't what's happening. You don't understand how "shorting a stock" works.

You can only make money shorting a stock if you physically have stock you can sell.


Naked Shorting is Illegal: So How the Hell was GameStop 140% Short?

There are a fixed number of shares for every publicly traded company. Some of those shares are reserve (cannot be traded). Of the rest outstanding shares, some of those shares (most in fact) are long, not for sale at the current market rate.

You cannot borrow and sell more shares that their are outstanding in the market.

A trader could 'borrow' some shares from another trader and immediately sell them back and borrow them again. However, for a deal to be legitimate (and for the original trader to make a profit) ALL of the borrowed stock has to repurchased at the lower price and returned to the lending trader.

If there is no intention to return the borrowed stock that is not shortselling. That isn't even corruption (corruption expects to make a gain) that is just stupidity. There is no way to make a profit from that -- that is defrauding the market.

Nope. It's using the rules to an advantage.

Please explain the advantage? If you can't return the borrowed stock, you commit fraud and go to jail (or get a fine). How is that an advantage?

Hardly anyone ever goes to jail over wall street financial fraud. In part this is what it is all about.
 
You can't short more stock than is available which is what was happening here.

It's not just illegal, it's impossible. You can't sell more of a stock than actually exists.

And yet that is what was happening. If it was impossible it wouldn't have had to been made illegal.

Read the article, that isn't what's happening. You don't understand how "shorting a stock" works.

You can only make money shorting a stock if you physically have stock you can sell.


Naked Shorting is Illegal: So How the Hell was GameStop 140% Short?

There are a fixed number of shares for every publicly traded company. Some of those shares are reserve (cannot be traded). Of the rest outstanding shares, some of those shares (most in fact) are long, not for sale at the current market rate.

You cannot borrow and sell more shares that their are outstanding in the market.

A trader could 'borrow' some shares from another trader and immediately sell them back and borrow them again. However, for a deal to be legitimate (and for the original trader to make a profit) ALL of the borrowed stock has to repurchased at the lower price and returned to the lending trader.

If there is no intention to return the borrowed stock that is not shortselling. That isn't even corruption (corruption expects to make a gain) that is just stupidity. There is no way to make a profit from that -- that is defrauding the market.

Nope. It's using the rules to an advantage.

Please explain the advantage? If you can't return the borrowed stock, you commit fraud and go to jail (or get a fine). How is that an advantage?

Hardly anyone ever goes to jail over wall street financial fraud. In part this is what it is all about.

Even if you don't go to jail ... even if you get off scot-free ... you can't make a profit from doing it. Why do it?
 
You can't short more stock than is available which is what was happening here.

It's not just illegal, it's impossible. You can't sell more of a stock than actually exists.

And yet that is what was happening. If it was impossible it wouldn't have had to been made illegal.

Read the article, that isn't what's happening. You don't understand how "shorting a stock" works.

You can only make money shorting a stock if you physically have stock you can sell.


Naked Shorting is Illegal: So How the Hell was GameStop 140% Short?

There are a fixed number of shares for every publicly traded company. Some of those shares are reserve (cannot be traded). Of the rest outstanding shares, some of those shares (most in fact) are long, not for sale at the current market rate.

You cannot borrow and sell more shares that their are outstanding in the market.

A trader could 'borrow' some shares from another trader and immediately sell them back and borrow them again. However, for a deal to be legitimate (and for the original trader to make a profit) ALL of the borrowed stock has to repurchased at the lower price and returned to the lending trader.

If there is no intention to return the borrowed stock that is not shortselling. That isn't even corruption (corruption expects to make a gain) that is just stupidity. There is no way to make a profit from that -- that is defrauding the market.

Nope. It's using the rules to an advantage.

Please explain the advantage? If you can't return the borrowed stock, you commit fraud and go to jail (or get a fine). How is that an advantage?

Hardly anyone ever goes to jail over wall street financial fraud. In part this is what it is all about.

Even if you don't go to jail ... even if you get off scot-free ... you can't make a profit from doing it. Why do it?

Influence. It backfired. What happened wouldn't have happened if the stock wasn't over shorted.
 
You can't short more stock than is available which is what was happening here.

It's not just illegal, it's impossible. You can't sell more of a stock than actually exists.

And yet that is what was happening. If it was impossible it wouldn't have had to been made illegal.

Read the article, that isn't what's happening. You don't understand how "shorting a stock" works.

You can only make money shorting a stock if you physically have stock you can sell.


Naked Shorting is Illegal: So How the Hell was GameStop 140% Short?

There are a fixed number of shares for every publicly traded company. Some of those shares are reserve (cannot be traded). Of the rest outstanding shares, some of those shares (most in fact) are long, not for sale at the current market rate.

You cannot borrow and sell more shares that their are outstanding in the market.

A trader could 'borrow' some shares from another trader and immediately sell them back and borrow them again. However, for a deal to be legitimate (and for the original trader to make a profit) ALL of the borrowed stock has to repurchased at the lower price and returned to the lending trader.

If there is no intention to return the borrowed stock that is not shortselling. That isn't even corruption (corruption expects to make a gain) that is just stupidity. There is no way to make a profit from that -- that is defrauding the market.

Nope. It's using the rules to an advantage.

Please explain the advantage? If you can't return the borrowed stock, you commit fraud and go to jail (or get a fine). How is that an advantage?

He who sells what isn't his'n, Must buy it back or go to prison.

Daniel Drew
 
he used the identity of Roaring Kitty

Coolest screen name EVAH!

View attachment 450835
:mad:And more proof that Democrats picked the wrong candidate (again)!
5647faca1400006f023cad27.jpeg

Bernie Sanders: 'The Business Model Of Wall Street Is Fraud'
 
Wall Street. Obviously they are not providing proper oversite.
If the following is accurate...

Nine Investors Instantly Make $16 Billion On GameStop Stock 'Squeeze'

"Nine investors, including large fund-running institutions like Fidelity FMR and BlackRock (BLK) plus some well-positioned individuals like Chewy (CHWY) co-founder Ryan Cohen watched the value of their GameStop holdings soar more than $1 billion.

"That's based on an Investor's Business Daily analysis of the most current holdings reported to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It's possible some of these investors may have boosted or cut their stakes since the rally.

"All told, these nine investors made a total of $16 billion on their GameStop stakes, just this year.o_O

...is it possible this entire episode was pre-planned in the sense of "capital taking care of capital"?
 
Wall Street. Obviously they are not providing proper oversite.
If the following is accurate...

Nine Investors Instantly Make $16 Billion On GameStop Stock 'Squeeze'

"Nine investors, including large fund-running institutions like Fidelity FMR and BlackRock (BLK) plus some well-positioned individuals like Chewy (CHWY) co-founder Ryan Cohen watched the value of their GameStop holdings soar more than $1 billion.

"That's based on an Investor's Business Daily analysis of the most current holdings reported to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It's possible some of these investors may have boosted or cut their stakes since the rally.

"All told, these nine investors made a total of $16 billion on their GameStop stakes, just this year.o_O

...is it possible this entire episode was pre-planned in the sense of "capital taking care of capital"?

They were investors, not people shorting it trying to bring it down. I'm hardly an expert here but it seems those who did this, did so in part to keep Game Stop from going under.
 
They were investors, not people shorting it trying to bring it down. I'm hardly an expert here but it seems those who did this, did so in part to keep Game Stop from going under.
I'm also far from being a finance expert, but I wonder if Keith Gill was an agent of those wealthy investors who made billion$ from this latest "David vs Goliath" episode?

GameStop Promoter Keith Gill Was No “Amateur” Trader; He Held Sophisticated Trading Licenses and Worked in the Finance Industry

"Yesterday evening, CNN’s Erin Burnett told millions of viewers that it was 'amateur traders' who had taken on the powerful Wall Street hedge funds to pump up the share price of GameStop.

"The New York Post also called Keith Gill, the man who initiated the frenzy in GameStop shares, an 'amateur investor.'

"This characterization of Gill fits with the broader mainstream media narrative that this is an exciting David versus Goliath story.

"Unfortunately, the facts keep getting in the way of that narrative."

My link has a couple of photos of Gill.
One shows how he looks on his day job at MassMutual.
The second reveals his YouTube persona in his basement's trading floor.:eek:
 
They were investors, not people shorting it trying to bring it down. I'm hardly an expert here but it seems those who did this, did so in part to keep Game Stop from going under.
I'm also far from being a finance expert, but I wonder if Keith Gill was an agent of those wealthy investors who made billion$ from this latest "David vs Goliath" episode?

GameStop Promoter Keith Gill Was No “Amateur” Trader; He Held Sophisticated Trading Licenses and Worked in the Finance Industry

"Yesterday evening, CNN’s Erin Burnett told millions of viewers that it was 'amateur traders' who had taken on the powerful Wall Street hedge funds to pump up the share price of GameStop.

"The New York Post also called Keith Gill, the man who initiated the frenzy in GameStop shares, an 'amateur investor.'

"This characterization of Gill fits with the broader mainstream media narrative that this is an exciting David versus Goliath story.

"Unfortunately, the facts keep getting in the way of that narrative."

My link has a couple of photos of Gill.
One shows how he looks on his day job at MassMutual.
The second reveals his YouTube persona in his basement's trading floor.:eek:

So Gill wasn't an amature trader. Big deal. Gill's trades didn't cause the uproar. The amature traders who took Gill's advice caused all the problems for Goliath.
 
lol Why do people keep calling these gamblers 'investors'? It's like calling a pimp a 'social worker'.
 
The stock was shorted with more shares than available. Sometimes you have to go to extreme's to expose corruption.
LOL oh right. I'm sure the hedge funds that went under while shorting beyond the available shares were valiantly trying to "expose corruption". BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! :21:

i have no idea what you are rambling about.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top