Skip to main content

Updated 2: Was Robinhood right in reducing the ability of its clients to purchase Gamestop shares?

The only reason that counts:  Robinhood ran out of collateral for GME and AMC and other high vol names.  Those who bitch about this just don't understand how markets operate (or care for that matter)

First principle:  Wall street, like the casino of Vegas, never loses!

Second Principle:  Pigs always end at the slaughter

Looking at Gamestop (GME) you know it's a bubble, trend following this kind of volatility (750%) tells you the stock can go to zero as it can go to $900.  Fundamental of the company at $10.00 showed the company possibly undervalued but a price of $360.  Well, that's just a mania.

A few months ago, Hertz (which was in chapter 11) tried to do a new share issue -- prior to the reorg.  You knew that ANY investor that bought these shares (maybe cheap) was 100% certain of getting wiped-out.  The SEC shut it down despite a huge appetite for the issuance.

What is also important is that the daily traded volume of the shares is equal to the float (shares not owned by insiders). Insiders have been selling (at around $30/40 range) for the past year.

Michael Burry (of the Big Short fame) has been a fan of the stock since 2019 -- he was far more famous on wall street for a value picker -- that's how he got money for GS, and that he was a deeply analytical guy.  

People who trade on Robinhood are not that!  They have little idea of Volatility, p/e, and the risk of trend following.  The reality is that Robinhood took the view that if its client's trade went "south" they would sue Robinhood.  So Robinhood made it hard for its client to trade (probably buy) the shares of AMC and GME.

Finally, the reason Robinhood had to reduce trades was a good one; the rise in Vol and the settlement for GME and AMC of T+2 creates a huge liability for Robinhood in terms of collateral they have to post.  Hence the 600 MM.  BTW everyone did the same thing for the same reason.

More news, last week, Robinhood got a call for collateral of US$ 3 billion -- up from US$ 30 million.  Eventually, Robinhood was able to reduce the call to $600 million.  Still, Robinhood had to borrow that from somewhere (it turns out the banks were happy to oblige, as were its shareholders).

This morning, Robinhood is down 25% to $246.  That's got a hurt those who bought it at $350...

UPDATE:  Turns out Robinhood is even more of a "shitshow"  obviously the firm was not ready for the business volume that the GME and other short squeeze generated - its back office is "inadequate" for the volume of clients and the volume of business.  But get this Robinhood was selling its order flow to Citadel...basically one of the biggest hedge funds knew where the little people were doing!  Now a this is very nice, the truth is that the whole game was caused by the options market's gamma squeeze.  So at the end of the day, Robinhood was a "sideshow"  Still








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Spray painting Taylor Swift G650 aircraft (updated)

 First, a bit of paint will not harm anyone.  These climate activities are going to learn two things in the next few days:  (1) Trespassing at an airport is a felony almost anywhere in the world.  That means criminal prosecution.   (2) removing paint from an aircraft is expensive.   So these climate activists are about to find out the reach of the British criminal system and it will not be pleasant, the UK has very strict laws about that, I would be surprised if cleaning the aircraft of all the paint will cost less than $100,000.     I am sure that when they planned (premeditation) this little show they had a very valid logic to doing this.  Tonight, they are probably realizing the depth of their troubles.   I understand that in the UK it's a minimum one-year jail sentence.    Also, good luck travelling with a criminal trespass charge against you.  I am relatively certain that the airline industry will ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Janet Yellen from China supporter to Hawk...

There is rarely serious news in the world these days, it seems that most newspapers are filled with headlines and little else, and then Ms Yellen went to China.  Secretary Yellen has long been known in the Biden administration as the voice of moderation when dealing with China, yet as her trip which concluded yesterday a hawk was born:  She warned the Chinese against dumping goods in the United States.    fighting words! The American administration is very concerned about the lack of Chinese domestic consumption.   Even before the COVID-19 epidemic, there were already the beginning signs of a slowdown, automobile sales were off.   China is facing domestic deflation (a clear sign of collapsing demand) China imports few consumer goods, they import raw materials and intermediary goods.   It seems that the American administration is concerned that the Chinese administration will dump consumer goods abroad to keep its manufacturing machinery ...
Post a Comment
Read more