It should be emphasized how low the stakes of the GME circus are. Only a tiny fraction of stocks and hedge funds are impacted. There is zero reason to think that reddit memes are going to become an important factor driving stock prices in general.
Josh is right that a lot of the retail investors who get involved in this are going to lose money. That's bad. But most investors aren't going to buy GME and they are unlikely to be affected at all.
A good rejoinder that some folks (notably @arpitrage) made to this is that the GME episode proves there's a reliable way for an online mob to blow up over-subscribed short positions. This might make traders more gun-shy about shorting stocks.
That does seem like a non-trivial impact but not a huge one. I think a lot of people over-estimate the importance of shorting in general. It pushes down the value of a stock at the margin but fundamentally a company's success depends on whether people want to invest in it or not.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Timothy B. Lee

Timothy B. Lee Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @binarybits

29 Jan
It seems like people who think that a short squeeze is a magical way to take money from rich people aren't thinking things through all the way.
It's true that if you bid up the price of a heavily shorted stock, then some of the shorts will be forced to buy the stock at inflated prices. In a sense that's a transfer of wealth from shorts to longs. But that's not the end of the story.
The gains of people holding $300 GME stock are paper profits. They don't matter unless people can cash out. And if everyone starts trying to cash out the price will go back down to $30 or something. A lot of people won't actually get $300.
Read 6 tweets
24 Jan
Just finished listening to Matt Stoller's Goliath, a political and intellectual history of the anti-monopoly movement over the last ~100 years. It gave me a better understanding of the intellectual history of 20th Century anti-monopoly thinking.
In particular, Stoller draws a distinction I hadn't thought very much about previously: between liberals who favor leaving monopolies in place and regulating them strictly vs. those who oppose bigness as such.
As Stoller tells it, New Dealers erected a complicated legal system designed to tilt the playing field in favor of small companies.
Read 10 tweets
19 Jan
We're just finishing our first road trip in our battery electric vehicle. It underscored for me one way that growing EV market share will make everyone's experience better: more chargers near other types of amenities.
Our car (Kia Niro) has a ~270 mile range, but the practicalities of the situation mean we have to charge every ~160 miles—about 2 hours of driving. This isn't so bad if we can stop and have lunch, spend the night at a hotel, let kids play on the playground, etc.
Right now it's a hassle to find a suitable restaurant/hotel/park that's near the right kind of charger. They exist but you have to go out of your way, or stop early, or go to a mediocre restaurant.
Read 4 tweets
17 Jan
I can't think of many historical precedents for a scenario where Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican party for the next four years. The only president to lose an election and then win the next one was Grover Cleveland.
Are there any other examples of presidents that lost re-election and ran again? I can't think of any.
I think the most recent candidates to win their party's nomination more than once were Nixon in 1968 and Stephensen in 1956. Nixon kept a low profile between 1960 and 1968.
Read 5 tweets
13 Jan
In 2007, my brother @startupandrew called to ask if I wanted to start a company with him. He needed a co-founder. I wanted to say yes but I didn't have a lot of savings and his startup ideas seemed kind of half-baked.
His first idea was a Fiverr-like website to match customers to businesses offering online services. He quickly gave up on that idea and started working on a secure mobile payments app. It was years ahead of its time but way too ambitious for founders with no banking connections.
By 2009, he was working on a lost-and-found service called SendMeHome. You'd buy stickers from SendMeHome with unique identifiers on them, then if your stuff got lost the finder would go to SendMeHome.com and contact you.
Read 18 tweets
12 Jan
Mobileye, a leading vendor of autonomous vehicle technology, is basing its safety case on an elementary statistical fallacy: multiplying together two probabilities as if they're independent when they're not.
Mobileye is planning to build two different self-driving stacks—one based entirely on cameras and the other based entirely on radar and lidar. Then after testing the two separately, they'll combine them into one system.
The theory is that if one system has a 1/10,000 chance of crashing in any given hour and the other system also has a 1/10,000 chance of crashing, a combined system has a 1 in 100 million (10,000 times 10,000) chance of crashing per hour.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!