GME's short positions are still increasing. Hmm. I had suspected ealier that the short position had increased since the 300 million buyback did not increase the GME stock price as much as I thought it would. The shorts are really fighting hard to keep GME's stock price down. The shorts cannot keep adding to their short positions forever, and the shorts cannot continue to short forever. This is going to be a series of many tough battles, but I believe the longs will win the war. My opinions.
for example, CRM, salesforce.com, trades at a PE of over 100 and earnings are not expected to grow next year, not to mention they don't really offer anything different than any other cloud computing company.
nothing happens until it does, just look at AIG last summer when it went from $8 to $60, C from $1 to $3, and Volkswagen from 200 to 1000. You won't know when it's coming, it may never come, but it does happen, and when it does it's painful. So the question is, if you have been short and well in the money, why not take the gains and go somewhere else. This is a crowded short, there has to be better short opportunities out there.
Look you have a point. It's just that positive messaging SOUNDS so much better to the ear than ninny whining like Motley Fool and the other hedgies. It's just the way it is, negativity is annoying.
That does not make you a pumper.
IMO, corruption is corruption. Whether it's naked shorts driving a stock down below fair value with FUD, or entities taking large options positions then floating "chatter" about buyouts which they've made up to engineer a move in the stock. Then get their friendly crooks at Barron's to add fuel to the momentum. If you claim to be against such manipulative behavior, you should not turn a blind eye to it so long as it enriches your pocket, then feign outrage when the opposite happens. I'm not referring to yourself or anyone else in particular, more to agood's generalizations about shorts which IMO apply equally to those who pump things with impunity from the SEC.
To add to what agoodkz said, a number of longs advocated buying strictly for fundamentals, not because there would be a buyout . I for one have always advocated that position but I would be more than happy selling my shared at a price of $32 (no less) if a buyout were to happen. I don't think that would make me a pumper.
I can't speak (write) for anyone else but a buyout is a believable scenario at the present valuation, although the buybacks are a little bit of a poison pill to any buyer I would think. The merits are there, and I don't think anyone on this board started the rumor. I believe that a lot of longs discussed the possibilty and merits, if there was any yahooing I would agree with you. Either way no one on the board is going to affect the stock price.
"Manipulative shorts are just casino gamblers. Take a trip to the nearest Indian casino instead and stand in the middle of the room and shout negative things until security escorts you out of the building. Wish we had that here."
Another statement which can be trivially flipped around to longs who are gambling and speculating, and using tactics like "hearing chatter about a PE buyout", or last year it was "chatter about BBY buyout" several times. It's every bit as ugly and leads to the same distortion of fair value. When there was that "chatter" a few weeks ago re GME I don't recall any longs here complaining about the speculative players who were manipulating the market with those comments, because so long as peoples accounts go up nobody cares about corruption. It's only when their accounts go down that people give a damn. It's such hypocrisy.
In other words, shorts, especially naked shorts, are parasites to the people who actually own the shares. Remoras to our Great White sharks. Manipulative shorts are just casino gamblers. Take a trip to the nearest Indian casino instead and stand in the middle of the room and shout negative things until security escorts you out of the building. Wish we had that here.
Shorts can't force longs to sell, but longs can force shorts to cover by pulling the borrow, hence, short will have to cover, doesn't matter where you shorted it or how in the money/under water you are.