Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's a valid argument, but they showed a ton of revenue lately and shouldn't be valued at 2/share.

I think the stock is between a 10/share and 30/share stock but I'm not a professional. Honestly the professionals aren't professionals and that's backed by some studies but I won't get into that right now.

The idea that you can cover this story without mentioning the short squeeze is lazy or dishonest. While it's an artificial boost to a stocks price it's a completely valid boost to that price too.

I use the PS5 as an example. How expensive is it? 500? Wrong. It's 500 if you put in time and energy, but if you value your time and energy over that of the retail price you can get one on ebay for 1000. Is it worth 1000? Only if you are impatient.

What's GME price? 2/share 15/share doesn't matter. If I have 1000 of something and I know that 1400 people MUST buy it by the end of the month, I can be sure that I'll make some money there. Was 400/share reasonable? I don't think so, that was mania and the fact that this short squeeze got mainstream and people had FOMO.



You can't really count on that, though.

All 1400 buyers could be satisfied with just 1 share that gets resold 1400 times. At even 20/share, some of the people who loaned out their shares to short-sellers are going to sell their shares when they get them back to cash in on the 1000% gains.

They could even be satisfied with 0 shares if someone is willing to short-sell. At 400/share, there were certainly plenty of people willing to short-sell.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: