[HN Gopher] Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer
___________________________________________________________________
Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 40 points
Date : 2021-06-11 08:22 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| flefto wrote:
| Just a reminder that robinhood prevented people buying certain
| stocks while allowing them to sell, causing many people to lose
| money, but supporting the short selling hedge funds, whilst
| claiming to be "investment for the people".
|
| Possibly they are rushing to IPO before facing court.
|
| I would neither buy shares IN Robinhood nor would I buy shares
| using a Robinhood account.
| Traster wrote:
| Is there any actual evidence this is true beyond just internet
| accusations?
| ruairispain wrote:
| There is evidence, was involved in it. Someone else took a
| screenshot. https://i.redd.it/86xuz0p7w2e61.jpg
|
| RH is a front for organised crime, selling data to Citadel so
| the can front run retailers trades. Hope to see Senate action
| on it at some point.
| manigandham wrote:
| Front-running is already illegal and nobody cares about
| doing it for a bunch of small retail traders. Also buying
| stock requires funds to clear for 2 days while selling
| doesn't, that's why buying was restricted but selling
| wasn't.
|
| Whether Robinhood should have had more capital or how those
| margin requirements were handled is a serious question but
| that's entirely separate than these accusations which seem
| to be made by people who have no idea how the system
| actually works.
| Traster wrote:
| That's not evidence that RH was:
|
| > supporting the short selling hedge funds
|
| Just to be clear: Robinhood claims that they prevented
| buying certain stocks because of increase collateral
| requirements by DTCC due to high volatility. Do you have
| any _evidence_ that 's untrue. Let's establish that before
| we move on to the claim that Citadel front-runs retail
| flow.
| Miner49er wrote:
| From my understanding, the reason the DTCC raised
| collaterals so heavily was mostly due to the risk on the
| short side. So they were protecting the hedge funds by
| protecting themselves, and it carried on to Robinhood. So
| Robinhood didn't really have a choice, but they still
| were protecting the shorts in the end.
| vkou wrote:
| And that's what happens when you play financial games you
| don't understand.
|
| If your strategy for driving a short squeeze, or a pump-
| and-dump does not take into account counterparty risk,
| you are going to get taken to the cleaners. When you
| making money causes the brokerage you are using to be
| _unable_ to execute that trade, this is 100% your fault.
|
| As the saying goes, don't invest in financial instruments
| you don't understand. Entering a long position in a
| volatile, high-volume stock through a discount brokerage
| was a financial instrument that most of /wsb did not
| understand, and it blew up in its face.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| Merely speculation that that was done to favor their
| partner other than something else.
| imdsm wrote:
| What is not speculation is that they restricted the
| buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The
| rest, though it may be speculation, has enough
| circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to
| make up their mind.
|
| The people who will invest in the IPO aren't going to be
| the people who lost money due to RH locking the
| purchasing of stocks and stopping the price from sky
| rocketing.
|
| But in terms of a customer base, in terms of a company,
| RH are dust.
|
| https://www.trustpilot.com/review/robinhood.com
| manigandham wrote:
| Robinhood has added millions of new accounts and the
| price of GME recently reached the same heights this past
| week for anyone that was still holding losses. A bunch of
| people gambling money isn't going to affect the company.
| jasode wrote:
| _> What is not speculation is that they restricted the
| buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. _
|
| Yes but RH didn't have the billions of $$$ deposited at
| the clearing house for their trades to be honored. Buying
| stock to _settle a few days later_ requires collateral
| that RH didn 't have.
|
| It may help to read through the answers:
| https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/136272/why-
| would-c...
|
| This is why they scrambled at the last minute to raise
| billions to meet the higher collateral requirements:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=robinhood+2.4+3.4+billion
|
| RH does some questionable things but their "restriction
| of the buying" is an inevitable consequence of not having
| the billions to meet any margin calls. They were the tail
| not the dog.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > What is not speculation is that they restricted the
| buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The
| rest, though it may be speculation, has enough
| circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to
| make up their mind.
|
| Right, because sell orders would lower the clearinghouse
| margin requirements. If there are $100M GME buys on RH
| with 2 days to clear and $100M GME sells with 2 days to
| clear, their clearinghouse margin requirement is $0.
| [deleted]
| jw1224 wrote:
| This is very important to know.
|
| Robinhood actively colluded with their hedge fund owners, by
| blocking buy orders -- but _not_ sell orders -- under the guise
| of "increased margin requirements".
|
| In fact, those margin requirements were being set by
| Robinhood's prime broker and investor, Citadel Securities --
| who were set to lose billions if retail were allowed to keep
| buying.
| jasode wrote:
| _> under the guise of "increased margin requirements".
|
| >In fact, those margin requirements were being set by
| Robinhood's prime broker and investor, Citadel Securities _
|
| To clarify, you're saying NSCC(DTCC) National Securities
| Clearing Corporation was instructed by Citadel to increase
| margin requirements? Example story:
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/investing/robinhood-
| gamestop-...
|
| Regardless of whether NSCC acted independently or under
| secret pressure from Citadel, what could Robinhood have done
| differently? If they didn't have the billions in the bank to
| control their destiny, what other options do they have? If
| the clearing house cuts off Robinhood's trade settlement,
| what are the realistic alternatives?
| mandmandam wrote:
| >Regardless of whether NSCC acted independently or under
| secret pressure from Citadel, what could Robinhood have
| done differently? If they didn't have the billions in the
| bank to control their destiny, what other options do they
| have? If the clearing house cuts off Robinhood's trade
| settlement, what are the realistic alternatives?
|
| What is integrity?
| flefto wrote:
| Robinhood's own customers got tossed to the dogs because
| Citadel told the CEO of Robinhood to manipulate the market.
|
| If you have a Robinhood account then you risk Robinhood
| making decision that lose you money so that the hedge funds
| make money.
| vkou wrote:
| Just a reminder that Robinhood didn't prevent this. Automatic
| increases to clearing house collateral requirements prevented
| this. If Robinhood allowed those trades to go through, they'd
| have been cut off from the clearing houses, and none of their
| customers would have been able to perform _any_ trades.
|
| Unfortunately, due to the low level of public understanding of
| how stock trades actually settle, the conspiracy narrative
| you're presenting was the one that made it into the public
| consciousness.
|
| There's no such thing as an instant stock trade. Retail
| brokerages are a leaky abstraction over what is actually an
| incredibly messy settlement layer. This abstraction holds when
| everything is normal, and leaks when stock prices become too
| volatile.
| flefto wrote:
| If so, why doesn't this happen all the time?
|
| In fact, when has it EVER happened before, or since?
|
| If it was normal wouldn't there regularly be stocks that
| can't be bought but can be sold?
| vkou wrote:
| Because stocks valuations don't jump by 2000%, with volumes
| up 3000% 'all the time'.
|
| And when they do, they aren't solely driven by retail
| investor mania pig-piling the exact same brokerage.
|
| And, uh, particular brokerages have stopped uni-directional
| trades for volatile stocks in the past, for the exact same
| reason. You may notice that no retail brokerage makes any
| guarantees to its customers that they will be able to trade
| anything, anytime they want. They don't carry a collateral
| that can meet any such guarantee.
| [deleted]
| rokobobo wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Robinhood, but everything that vkou has
| been saying is true.
|
| My understanding is that Robinhood is self-clearing, not
| that Citadel is its prime brokerage.
|
| The clearing margin requirement came from NSCC. Clearing
| margins CANNOT be satisfied using client funds. So it's
| Robinhood's own capital--and whatever credit lines
| they've negotiated--that would need to meet those
| requirements.
|
| If I deposit 100k into Robinhood and keep it there as
| cash for 2 years, then one day I plunk all of it into
| GME, then until all my trades settle two days later,
| Robinhood will have increased clearing margin
| requirements based on the VaR of my unsettled trades.
| (Unless, my trade offsets someone else's from within
| Robinhood, in which case I believe RH's margin would
| reduce--but I'm not sure about this part.)
|
| And if one day after my trades, GME's stock goes up 10x,
| the VaR goes up roughly 10x as well. Even though I would
| have a claim to a lot higher value in my account once
| everything is settled, until the trades are settled, it's
| a major cash crunch for RH.
|
| The fact of the matter is that RH was not under-
| capitalized or have disproportionately small credit lines
| as a portion of their AUM, as compared to other
| brokerages. It's just that their users were the ones that
| acted in a most coordinated way on a stock whose VaR was
| going through the roof.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > Automatic increases to clearing house collateral
| requirements prevented this.
|
| I don't think they were automatic? They were raised way more
| then what was standard.
| tl wrote:
| Robinhood implemented restrictions before any other platform
| though they were not the only ones to do so, held
| restrictions longer than any of their competitors, used
| restrictions (sell only) in a way that was unique to
| Robinhood and falsely made public claims (later to be
| retracted) that they had chosen to do some or all of this
| "for the public good."
|
| I would not trust them with a single dollar.
| vkou wrote:
| That's because Robinhood had the bulk of the retail mania,
| and were thus the most affected brokerage.
|
| Other retail brokerages, that were less popular with the
| WSB crowd never even stopped purchases of GME, because GME
| is was a small fraction of their trade volume - and thus,
| their collateral obligations did not grow much.
|
| You are correct for not wanting to use them to trade, for
| two reasons.
|
| 1. If you are actively trading, you are almost certainly
| throwing away money. Don't actively trade. Just buy an
| index fund and forget about it.
|
| 2. If you are actively trading, and you are a serious,
| informed individual (which already excludes the
| overwhelming majority of people who were buying GME), and
| you want 24/7 uptime, you shouldn't use a discount zero-fee
| brokerage that's popular on WSB. They won't be able to
| guarantee that uptime when WSB decides to take one side of
| a huge trade.
| jw1224 wrote:
| No, Robinhood's collateral requirements were increased by
| their clearing house only because their clearing house were
| on the hook to lose billions to retail investors during
| January's short squeezes.
|
| The same clearing house used by Robinhood were the same
| people illegally naked-shorting GME.
|
| This is collusion, plain and simple. No part of this is
| representative of the "free" market.
| vkou wrote:
| Nonsense. Clearing houses don't lose anything during a
| short squeeze, as long as funds _committed_ to a trade
| actually clear. They aren 't the ones on the hook for a
| short exploding.
|
| They raise their collateral requirements during a period of
| high volatility. As it turns out, when you run a zero-fee
| brokerage, you don't just have a couple of extra billions
| of dollars lying around that you can put up as collateral
| on a moment's notice.
|
| > illegally naked-shorting GME.
|
| You don't understand how shorts work.
|
| You don't need anyone doing a naked short for a stock to
| exceed 100% short. This has been explained hundreds of
| times, both here, and on Reddit.
| [deleted]
| jw1224 wrote:
| > The only people allowed to naked short are market
| makers
|
| The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008
| financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked
| short.
|
| > Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short
| squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually
| clear
|
| Exactly my point -- _as long as funds clear_ , which they
| were at risk of not doing, thus putting clearing houses
| like the DTCC on the hook, in the event of a margin call.
|
| Let me break it down:
|
| - Melvin Capital were aggressively shorting GME
|
| - Retail investors used Robinhood to take advantage of a
| short squeeze opportunity
|
| - During the short squeeze, Citadel (who partly own
| Melvin Capital) bailed-out Melvin with a $2.8bn
| investment
|
| - Citadel is Robinhood's prime brokerage, paying them for
| preferential order flow
|
| - Citadel's global Head of Operations is on the board of
| the DTCC, the clearing house responsible for increasing
| collateral requirements
|
| - As a market maker, Citadel care a _huge_ amount about
| GME exploding, because if Melvin Capital were margin-
| called, Citadel end up holding the bag
|
| - If Citadel are margin-called themselves, the DTCC
| clearing house end up holding the bag.
|
| This is really just the tip of the iceberg. I'm
| consistently surprised at how defensive comments on HN
| seem to be towards hedge funds and the whole short-
| squeeze debacle -- which is still very much ongoing. I
| can happily point anyone with an open mind in the
| direction of excellent research summarising the _ongoing_
| situation, and there 's mounds of evidence indicating
| hedge funds never actually covered in January.
|
| Not to mention the math on vote tallies in GME's latest
| 8-K filing from 2 days ago _clearly proves more GME
| shares exist than should be mathematically possible_ ,
| enabled only by naked short sellers who never covered.
|
| Oh, and whilst I'm at it, their 8-K also disclosed that
| they've been working with the SEC since May to assist
| them with an active investigation in to market
| manipulation. Doesn't get much more obvious than that,
| does it?
|
| But if it's easier to turn a blind eye, then each to
| their own.
| ahtihn wrote:
| > Not to mention the math on vote tallies in GME's latest
| 8-K filing from 2 days ago clearly proves more GME shares
| exist than should be mathematically possible, enabled
| only by naked short sellers who never covered.
|
| You mean the 8-K that showed 55M votes out of 70M shares
| outstanding? How does that prove anything? Maybe you're
| confusing shares outstanding with the float.
| jw1224 wrote:
| Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
|
| For context, last year's 8-K showed 66% of shares voted.
| The 8-K also reported a total of 42,886,817 shares voted
| last year. This year's 8-K, issued 2 days ago, showed 55M
| votes out of 70M possible. Therefore, 78.5% of shares
| were voted.
|
| However, unusually, this year's 8-K did NOT report the
| total number of votes actually received.
|
| Unsurprisingly this is likely because 8-K filings cannot
| legally show over 100% of shares voted. GME's votes were
| counted by Computershare [1]. When more votes are
| received than shares outstanding, the vote tabulator
| (Computershare) will "scale" the votes proportionally to
| never exceed 100%. Computershare have publicly documented
| procedures in place for how they scale votes in the event
| of overvoting [2].
|
| An off-by-1 rounding error in the 8-K on votes for
| Lawrence Cheng, compared to all the other board members,
| is highly suggestive votes have been scaled.
|
| Retail brokers like eToro reported only 63% of eligible
| votes were cast [3]. Countless international brokers
| either refused or were unable to allow their shareholders
| to cast votes.
|
| Since the initial squeeze, the buy-sell ratio as reported
| by Fidelity [4] vastly favours buying over selling. It's
| slightly lower than it has been at the moment (currently
| 76% buys), but back at April 14th when the vote deadline
| was, it was higher than it is today. This shows retail
| are not selling, only buying more.
|
| Additionally, the broker non-vote figures in this year's
| 8-K are significantly _less_ than in previous years. This
| is another indicator of vote scaling, given the huge push
| from retail investors to vote their shares.
|
| These filings are only 2 days old, and truthfully, only
| time will tell what will come of this. I've been watching
| the price action of GME follow very predictable patterns
| around option expiry and settlement dates over the past
| few months, clear patterns are emerging. For more on this
| you can search "GME FTD cycles".
|
| My comments here really just cover the tip of the
| iceberg, and I hope they provided some food for thought
| for others. I didn't even start on the blatant media
| coverups, or the obvious patterns of brand new Reddit
| accounts almost exclusively being used to encourage sell-
| offs. Nor coordinated pump-and-dumps on WSB for stocks
| Citadel own long positions in. Or crypto markets tanking
| within _minutes_ before liquidity tests begin. Or CNBC
| abruptly cutting off guests who mention naked shorting.
| Or brokers who are unable to locate shares. Or Michael
| Burry, the famed investor who made billions from shorting
| the housing market in 2008, having taken a long position
| on GME. Or GameStop only actually publicly acknowledging
| the potential of a squeeze on their social media, the
| exact same day their chairman would have received the
| initial (non-scaled) vote counts.
|
| I could keep going on in more detail but I'll let others
| do their own research. I feel I've read enough to be
| confident in my assessment that shorts have not covered,
| but if I'm wrong, I don't have more skin in the game than
| I can afford to lose. We'll see!
|
| ---
|
| [1] Page 11, section 9: https://news.gamestop.com/static-
| files/8f795a88-54a3-4320-b3...
|
| [2] https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVE
| R_VOTIN...
|
| [3] https://twitter.com/eToro/status/1402643555403829256
|
| [4] https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/gotoBL/fidel
| ityTopO...
| flefto wrote:
| On the day in question, Robinhood posted to say this is
| what it was doing, and it explicitly stated that it was
| doing so to protect its customers from volatility. It
| absolutely said nothing at all about doing it because of
| regulatory or other requirements.
|
| Robinhood has since deleted that post from its site.
|
| And no matter how you cut the cake, if you put your money
| into Robinhood then you risk losing it when Robinhood
| changes the rules.
|
| That's the message people need to hear.
| rokobobo wrote:
| It seems that the commenters in this thread have at least
| two views on what you call "changing the rules." The fact
| of the matter is, no one guarantees you 100% uptime
| access to the markets. I think this episode should be a
| lesson for everyone, RH sympathizers and haters alike,
| that it probably makes a lot of sense to have well-funded
| accounts at at least 2 brokerages, if you plan to be an
| active trader.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| If Robinhood hadn't disabled GME buys, one possibility
| was RH customers not being able to trade _any stocks_.
| Which one do you think is the better choice, limiting a
| single stock, or potentially losing the ability for all
| customers of RH to trade _all_ stocks?
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008
| financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked
| short.
|
| Actually, they are allowed to naked short. It's essential
| for them to be able to do so to hedge their exposure and
| provide a bid/ask at all times.
|
| https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
| jw1224 wrote:
| Thanks, that's the first I've heard of that. I'll have a
| read, cheers.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| The reason they're allowed to is precisely for a GME type
| situation, if there is a massive buy-side imbalance and
| there aren't enough shares to borrow to short (aka sell
| to buyers), market makers are allowed to naked short to
| remain delta neutral.
|
| Citadel (probably[0]) isn't going to naked short GME to
| take a directional position, they just want to capture
| the bid/ask and hedge the directional risk, which
| sometimes requires naked shorting. I suppose they could
| (and might) use synthetic shorts (long atm put, short atm
| call) to hedge. I'm not sure if only a designated market
| maker is allowed to naked short, or if supplemental
| liquidity providers or other types of MMs I don't know
| about are also allowed to naked short.
|
| [0] I say this only because I'm not Ken Griffin and don't
| know with absolute certainty, but generally a market
| maker aims to stay delta neutral.
| rokobobo wrote:
| Do you have evidence that Citadel is RH's prime
| brokerage? Being an executing broker or a trading
| counterparty or paying for order flow has nothing to do
| with being a prime brokerage or clearing RH's trades.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| RH self clears:
| https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2018/10/9/introducing-
| cleari...
|
| Before that they used Apex.
|
| This commenter seems disastrously uninformed about
| something they have very strident beliefs about.
| jw1224 wrote:
| I just re-read my comment and saying Citadel was
| Robinhood's prime brokerage was definitely an error (too
| late to edit the comment now). I should've said market-
| maker.
|
| Nonetheless, all the conflicts-of-interest between
| Citadel, Robinhood, and Melvin still stand. Citadel own
| Melvin, Citadel are market-makers for Robinhood, Citadel
| are members of the DTCC, Robinhood users cost Melvin
| billions, Citadel are footing the bill.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Correction, Citadel is a PFOF customer of Robinhood, not
| a market maker for Robinhood. Market makers are retained
| by the exchanges.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Worth noting that Robinhood is a member of the DTCC
| directly. As is Computershare.
|
| You don't need the connection to Citadel. If any member
| of DTCC blows up DTCC holds the bag. But all that means
| is all members of DTCC hold the bag, including the
| members holding the non-settled long positions because
| all public equities in the US trade through DTCC or one
| of its members.
| nickpp wrote:
| This flurry of IPOs and acquisitions kinda' remind me of the 1999
| - 2000 times. But maybe I am too old and jaded...
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/92B40
| elevenoh wrote:
| FYI for those interested: you can get exposure to Robinhood's
| post-IPO market cap outcome right now via FTX.com pre-IPO
| futures.
|
| This is something I'm pleasantly surprised by in 2021: Deposit
| crypto. Transact pre-ipo futures, stock futures, commodities like
| lumber etc. 24/7 with solid-liquidity.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you can get exposure to Robinhood 's post-IPO market cap_
|
| Ish. Creating derivatives around private assets is hard. Anyone
| who bought FTX swaps in _e.g._ Coinbase pre-IPO lost money on
| bad pricing alone. It's for these reasons that their product is
| not compliant with decades-old U.S. securities law.
| Unfortunately, it's free to roam in younger jurisdictions.
|
| _Disclaimer: I work in the private markets. I used to make
| markets in derivatives. I haven't seen a single solution, to
| date, that competently combines the two._
| gruez wrote:
| >Anyone who bought FTX swaps in e.g. Coinbase pre-IPO lost
| money on bad pricing alone.
|
| Is this when they're buying, or when they're selling?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is this when they 're buying, or when they're selling?_
|
| FTX isn't a trading venue for shares. They create tokens
| _representing_ the shares [1].
|
| When they sell a token representing Coinbase stock at 3x
| what the stock is trading on private stock venues, and a
| bit more compared with where it IPO'd, that gain isn't
| necessarily going to other FTX customers. It's going to
| their captive broker-dealer, a German-regulated ( _i.e._
| virtually unregulated) entity.
|
| Given Coinbase shareholders weren't allowed to transfer
| shares on unapproved platforms, there were _zero_
| authorized Coinbase sellers on FTX. The winnings went to
| the house.
|
| [1] https://help.ftx.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/360051229472-Tokenize...
| rataata_jr wrote:
| I wish I could downvote.
| Traster wrote:
| These valuations are crazy - meaning one of two things are going
| to happen in the mid-term. Either we see inflation outside of
| asset prices (wage rises, increased consumer spending) and the
| revenue of these companies rise to justify the valuations, or we
| don't see that inflation and these stock prices slide since they
| can't justify their values. Now I'm not an economist - so maybe
| someone can help me out here. If the market slides because of
| lack of already priced in inflation, is that deflationary? And
| therefore could it bethat the asset price inflation we've seen
| recently could be reversed simply by a lack of retail inflation
| causing stock prices to drop therefore destroying asset price
| inflation?
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > These valuations are crazy
|
| To whom? 0% interest and the Fed put have a _massive_ impact on
| valuations, particularly growth stocks.
| randomsearch wrote:
| only know a little about economics but it seems very unlikely
| inflationary would drive up stocks more than it's driving up
| prices across the board. even if it were, the (subjective)
| large over-valuation of stocks wouldn't really be explain by an
| increase in money supply.
|
| When the stock market collapses, it probably won't move
| inflation directly rather the collapse in demand across the
| economy will. second order effects as credit is no longer
| available due to banks panicking and govts intervening...
| pram wrote:
| 1) A market correction is deflationary pretty much by
| definition 2) Inflation is a lagging indicator. The obvious
| expectation months ago would have been economic activity
| increasing after COVID 3) Valuation is often disconnected from
| revenue or anything else you'd consider rational, and it has
| nothing to do with inflation. An equity is its own thing, not a
| perfect indicator of economic reality
| Clewza313 wrote:
| Didi is the Chinese Uber, and Uber's market cap as I write this
| is $90B, so on the face of it $70B for a fast-growing market on
| track to be several times larger than the US doesn't seem
| crazy.
|
| Of course, that's assuming Uber's valuation is sane, which is
| not a bet I'd personally be willing to take.
| fnord77 wrote:
| there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right?
|
| I think for both shorting puts, there's a lockout period after
| the stock is issued. And limited inventory for borrowing.
|
| Or has that changed?
|
| I see almost all recent high-flying IPOs as overly inflated
| investor cashouts. Steve Blank had a post about this...
| poooogles wrote:
| >there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right?
|
| Sell call options? Buy puts?
| enlyth wrote:
| Options are not available from day one on IPOs, usually it
| takes at least a few weeks for them to get listed, although
| the minimum delay is three days
| [deleted]
| np_tedious wrote:
| This is generally unavailable until 1 day after IPO.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| You could do an OTC swap with Goldman Sachs, or just wait a
| week for the market makers to open up the option chains.
|
| Once the chain is open, you can sell as many puts as your heart
| desires (or as many as your broker will let you) FYI, shorting
| puts is long delta, so you'd want the price to go up if you
| sold puts. Long puts and short calls are negative delta (short)
| frankbreetz wrote:
| https://archive.is/92B40
| codetrotter wrote:
| This definitely calls for that one four-panel image macro with
| drake saying no thanks in panel one to something in panel two,
| and approving in panel three to what's in panel four.
|
| You know the one right?
|
| So then panel two: Buying meme-stocks
|
| And panel four: Buying stonks in the platform that everyone is
| using to buy meme-stocks.
|
| It's too bad that I don't actually have any money to buy
| Robinhood IPO though :^) :')
| mandmandam wrote:
| You must have missed the 420 memos where clearly bizarre
| fuckery around "meme stocks" was supported by Robinhood
| suspending trading of them, resulting in a mass migration from
| RH to Fidelity and others.
|
| You probably shouldn't talk condescendingly about things you
| clearly are so behind on.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > You probably shouldn't talk condescendingly about things
| you clearly are so behind on.
|
| Which part of my comment seemed condescending to you? For the
| record, no part of it was intended to be.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Fair enough - though I'd suggest you differentiate between
| meme stocks (those hyped on social media) and meme stocks
| that were targeted for destruction by SHFs and are now
| facing a multi-billion short squeeze. There's a lot of
| range between those two definitions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-11 23:02 UTC)