Traders Are Betting Millions That Trump Media 'Meme Stock' Will Tumble (nytimes.com) 151
Many investors are lining up to bet on the collapse of former President Donald J. Trump's social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which made its stock market debut last week under the ticker "DJT." The stock has been called the "mother of all meme stocks" since it is highly volatile and there are no fundamental underpinnings. It's being valued at roughly 1,600 times its annual revenue, at Wednesday's closing price. "By comparison, the stock of Facebook's owner trades at about eight times revenues, and Google's owner trades at six times," notes Fast Company. The New York Times reports: Trump Media is the most "shorted" special purpose acquisition vehicle in the country, according to the financial data company S3 Partners. Short-sellers bet that the price of a stock will fall. They do that by borrowing shares of a company and selling them into the market, hoping to buy them back later at a lower price, before returning the shares to the lender and pocketing the difference as profit. The demand to short Trump Media, the parent company of the social media platform Truth Social, is so great that stock lenders can charge enormous fees, making it hard for short-sellers to turn a profit unless the shares fall significantly. Still, there is a lot of interest in taking the bet. "They are looking for this stock to crater and crater very quickly," said Ihor Dusaniwsky, managing director of predictive analytics at S3. Last month, traders lost $126 million betting against Trump Media, according to S3.
On Monday, Trump Media published updated financial information, revealing little revenue, large losses and a statement from the company's independent auditor expressing "substantial doubt" about its financial viability. This appeared to galvanize investors betting against the company, as the stock slipped from its highs. But short-sellers are finding it difficult and costly to trade in Trump Media. There are roughly 137 million shares in the company, and only around five million of those are available to short-sellers. Mr. Trump owns about 60 percent of shares, and company executives also hold a chunk of the stock. Company insiders tend not to lend their shares to short-sellers. Big asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, which regularly lend out shares, are not major holders of Trump Media, further crimping the supply.
According to S3, 4.9 million of the roughly five million available shares are already on loan. As with any loan, when share owners lend their stock to a short-seller, they charge a fee, usually expressed as an annual interest rate on the stock's current value. Typically, the fee for borrowing stock is a fraction of a percentage point. For Trump Media, it has risen to 550 percent, Mr. Dusaniwsky said. Trump Media's stock currently trades at around $50. That means that shorting it for a month would cost more than $20 per share. For a short-seller to break even, the stock price would have to fall by almost half by early May.
There is another wrinkle, too. One large broker said much of the short trading was not an outright bet against Trump Media. Since the advent of meme-stock trading and the vilification of short-sellers that win only if popular companies lose, large investors are wary of making such trades. Instead, the current trade driving demand is designed to capture the difference between DJT's stock price and outstanding "warrants," which will give the owners the right to new stock at a fixed price as long as regulators approve the new shares. Partly because of that uncertainty, those warrants currently trade below $19, with a list of hedge funds as recent holders. Even after the high cost to borrow stock is accounted for, they are still able to profit from the $30 difference between existing stock and what the warrants are worth, assuming the warrants become registered as shares.
On Monday, Trump Media published updated financial information, revealing little revenue, large losses and a statement from the company's independent auditor expressing "substantial doubt" about its financial viability. This appeared to galvanize investors betting against the company, as the stock slipped from its highs. But short-sellers are finding it difficult and costly to trade in Trump Media. There are roughly 137 million shares in the company, and only around five million of those are available to short-sellers. Mr. Trump owns about 60 percent of shares, and company executives also hold a chunk of the stock. Company insiders tend not to lend their shares to short-sellers. Big asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, which regularly lend out shares, are not major holders of Trump Media, further crimping the supply.
According to S3, 4.9 million of the roughly five million available shares are already on loan. As with any loan, when share owners lend their stock to a short-seller, they charge a fee, usually expressed as an annual interest rate on the stock's current value. Typically, the fee for borrowing stock is a fraction of a percentage point. For Trump Media, it has risen to 550 percent, Mr. Dusaniwsky said. Trump Media's stock currently trades at around $50. That means that shorting it for a month would cost more than $20 per share. For a short-seller to break even, the stock price would have to fall by almost half by early May.
There is another wrinkle, too. One large broker said much of the short trading was not an outright bet against Trump Media. Since the advent of meme-stock trading and the vilification of short-sellers that win only if popular companies lose, large investors are wary of making such trades. Instead, the current trade driving demand is designed to capture the difference between DJT's stock price and outstanding "warrants," which will give the owners the right to new stock at a fixed price as long as regulators approve the new shares. Partly because of that uncertainty, those warrants currently trade below $19, with a list of hedge funds as recent holders. Even after the high cost to borrow stock is accounted for, they are still able to profit from the $30 difference between existing stock and what the warrants are worth, assuming the warrants become registered as shares.
Don't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a famous investment quote that goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".
If you join in the pack shorting something like this, you open yourself up to the possibility some kind of irrational buying flood comes in and wipes you out.
Remember that these days very few stocks are actually priced according to value, so it doesn't seem like a Trump based stock would be any exception.
Re: (Score:2)
At 550% you basically go broke if the stock doesn't crater, no irrational buying flood required. The people who bought this are Trump fans, and they're likely to hold onto their stock as a collectors item, not an investment.
Sounds like the smart bet is to be the one lending your shares to the shorts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're making 550% you don't give a crap what the price does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When someone shorts a stock what they actual do is borrow shares in it, sell them, then buy them back later in order to repay the loan. As the person lending the shares, you charge interest. You make that interest no matter what.
Shorting a stock isn't a bet that the stock will go down. It's a bet that that stock will go down more than someone else thinks it will. That someone else is the one lending out their shares, and their expectation for how much it will go down is represented by the interest they char
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The people who bought this are Trump fans, and they're likely to hold onto their stock as a collectors item, not an investment.
You don't get a stock certificate any longer unless you request it. Not sure why someone would hold onto their ten shares of a failed company considering once the price is below $1 it gets delisted.
Then again, these are the same people who keep giving their money to a billionaire who keeps asking for money, so what do I know.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:2)
Politics aside, buying right now isn't a terrible idea.
All these shorts are going to have to buy back and there's a very small pool to buy back from which will very likely trigger a big rise in the stock price.
Shorting this or any other stock is a terrible idea for small investors, though. I suspect a lot of people are going to get creamed shorting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a volatile stock with a small pool of available shares. It only has to go up nicely on one day to trigger some shorts into buying back which will increase the price, trigger more, and so on.
The underlying value is much lower than the current ask price but that's also irrelevant here in the short term.
Shorting this is extremely risky. Buying some for kicks has limited downside. It can only go to zero. While the shorts can take a blood bath if it goes up a few points on a random day for any random un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ok, yeah, total agreement. I'd assume any big investor shorts have their calls in place to keep the damage from going too high although I do wonder if any of them would bother getting into such a tiny stock anyway. I'd didn't work that close to the finance guys so I'm just assuming they'd do something sensible.
But DJT is very small cap. Much too small for the typical 401k or other large investment house to bother putting in more than a trivial amount of play money in the high risk section of their por
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be interesting to watch this play out either way. I added DJT to my stock watcher app at the bottom for kicks.
I also recently added Reddit, planet fitness, and my retired BIL's former company where he literally has his entire net worth in that one stock which is down 30% from their high. If it drops too much he'll have to go back to work and possibly sell his house. If he moves to another area (he's been looking in another state) then my SIL will have to move in with us. They're long term
Re: (Score:2)
"Short positions can be rolled over."
If the stock goes up, you are welcome to maintain your short. However, you will have to put up money to cover your loss to this point. If you don't pony up, you *must* unwind your position. The broker will let you gamble your money all you want, but you don't get to gamble his.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of them probably have requested stock certificates. There was a conspiracy theory going round which claimed that there was some kind of trickery with non-paper stocks. I forget the details, but the gist of it was that they thought the federal government would wipe out all their meme stocks, or sell more than really existed, or something like that, and that if they had the paper certificates they could still claim the billions of dollars they would be worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the feds per se, but "Naked, Short and Greedy: Wall Street's Failure to Deliver" is a book that talks about how shenanigans in how trades are settled can result in phantom shares where the number of shares held exceeds the number of shares that actually exist.
Re: (Score:2)
You still own a share of DJT. Even if it's delisted. I don't understand why that would matter to someone, but it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are quoting the clean version, the 1983 version from Gary Shilling.
Since this is a meme stonk, it would be more appropriate to use the meme version of the quote from 2021. As seen on r/wallstreetbets [reddit.com], "We Can Stay Retarded Longer Than You Can Stay Solvent"
Just one percent of the people who voted for Trump could spend their entertainment money for the week and crush some Wall Street douchbags. I voted for Trump, and I think the valuation on this is insane, er, retarded. I think that the shorts will wi
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. The stock will decline. By a lot. But the "tumbling" part is a big unknown. For everyone trying to purposely collapse it (for the team!), there is someone trying to prop it up (for the team!).
Like the Gamestop fiasco, a bunch of newbs intentionally wanted to screw things up, a little money here and there, money they were fully willing to lose, and the professionals (not evil people) don't have a plan on how to realize this or how to deal with it but with no time to figure it out either. Sort of li
Re:Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
You sell borrowed shared today at the current price and you have to replace those borrowed shares when it comes due hopefully at a lower price and then you make money. If the stock goes up then you lose money. Shorts have the potential to lose a lot of money if the stock goes up.
Yahoo back in the late 90's was so heavily shorted that the shorts expiring and having to buy the shares at the current market price kept pushing the stock price up causing the next days shorts to have to buy at the even higher market price. Eventually all the shorts worked their way out of the system and new people stopped buying enough new shorts to drive up the price.
If too many people want to short something that is a definite sign to stay away, as too many people shorting too many shares is very bad for the people shorting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget buying puts. Instead of exposing directly by shorting stock, you can buy puts to obtain a similar position for a (typically, but not always) portion of what a real position would cost. Unless you're an Ape, then you just YOLO. Honestly, after watching GameStop, I'm tempted to buy some calls, just in case a million apes decide to throw mom's savings into it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think a lot of it is Trump supporters "investing" in the stock. A lot of them bought in when Truth Social launched, and lost most of it as the price fell. Now they are seeing their money come back and are even throwing more into it.
It's very risky. If Trump loses the election, or runs out of money due to lawsuits and various frauds, it will crash hard. In fact it will probably crash after the election even if he does win that and all his legal battles, at least until 2028 when he goes for a third term.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it's easier to short a stock than it is to buy puts. I haven't looked at truth social but, in many cases, the transaction volume in puts is very low. There simply isn't a buyer who wants to take the other
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget buying puts. Instead of exposing directly by shorting stock, you can buy puts to obtain a similar position for a (typically, but not always) portion of what a real position would cost. Unless you're an Ape, then you just YOLO. Honestly, after watching GameStop, I'm tempted to buy some calls, just in case a million apes decide to throw mom's savings into it.
I bought some puts. I think it'll continue to decline. We'll see whether it declines faster than the time decay on the June puts I bought -- or if you're right and idiots are going to pile in enough to pump the price. So far, I'm up 10% on a two-hour investment, er, bet (this type of trading is more akin to gambling than investing, IMO).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't do it (Score:2)
No, because generally when you short you borrow a share from someone who was holding (keeping the price up) and you immediately sell that share (putting downward pressure on the price).
In a perfectly balanced world, every time a stock goes above fair value, a short seller would immediately take those profits and push the price back down it's fair value.
Re: (Score:2)
False. What you normally do is either buy or sell a derivative and no trade occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
generally when you short ...
False. What you normally do is either buy or sell a derivative and no trade occurs.
You made a true statement but an incorrect reply. The post you replied to was talking about what happens when "you" short. Your reply was that "you" normally do not short. Your statement is irrelevant to what happens when "you" short, regardless of whether it is "normal" or not.
The post you replied to is not false. It's as if someone posted "When you fly a hot air balloon ..." and you replied "False. What you normally do is board a commercial flight on a jet airplane." True, but irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try it again for you since both the gp and I used 'you' in the generic context.
"False. What one normally does is either buy or sell a derivative and no trade occurs."
Yes, technically short selling is borrowing a stock and selling it but since that isn't sane for private traders and carries unlimited downside it is rarely done by anyone who isn't in a position to manipulate the market and who doesn't have a massive pool of equity they can leverage to keep the position if it moves in the wrong direction
Re: (Score:2)
The lenders of shares get paid a few percent per year (1-15% is what I have seen) to lend the shares depending on the short demand activity. The higher the need is for lending a specific share the higher the rates go. So if you own shares it becomes an extra income stream but may increase the price swings on the specific stock.
Based on the risks/downsize of shorting it would seem to be a pretty bad risk to short something like DJT where there would be a lot that are betting on it going down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The lenders of shares get paid a few percent per year (1-15% is what I have seen)
In this case, there is such a huge demand for shorts that interest rates are something like 500 % - a very risky proposition indeed.
https://www.morningstar.com/ne... [morningstar.com]
Re: Don't do it (Score:2)
"Based on that data, to short 100 DJT shares at their current price, it would cost between $24,895 to $29,874 a year. That means the stock would have to fall about 1.4% a day just to cover the cost to short it. And if the short was held for a year, the bet would still lose about $20,000 to $25,000 even if the stock fell to $1."
Re:Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
There's another thing the summary doesn't explain about shorting.
When you short and the stock goes up, you have to pay additional cash to your lender to keep your position.
Your theoretical max loss is infinity. Realistically, your max loss is complete bankruptcy as a small stock could easily go up 100s of times higher than the initial short price you paid. At the other end your max gain is whatever you put in if it goes to zero (minus fees etc). So, if you short $10000 worth your could make at most $10000. At the other end you could get wiped out if it goes up enough.
Shorting is only for the insane and the super experts. Don't short this or anything else if you're not in one of those two categories. I have decades of stock investing experience. I have -never- shorted a stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically shorting is only for market manipulator scale entities whose trades become self-fulfilling prophecies. Others can use derivatives to bet in that direction but it is still very volatile.
The only shares I recommend shorting are your own. If you think a stock is good long but will go down short term you can sell it in hopes of scooping it back up at a lower cost basis. This carries the same profit potential without the premium, interest, margin calls, or requirement you eat the cost rather than segwa
Re: (Score:2)
Omg... I didn't say you pay $10k. I said your max profit was $10k. Jfc... smh. So totally tds you jumped in to write some bullshit before you even finished reading what I actually said.
If you want to risk bankruptcy playing games with highly risky and extremely volatile stock trades you don't understand, go ahead. You've been warned.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, sell it short, come back here in a few weeks crying about how it went up and you got butchered because Trump and the evil 1% conspired against you.
Dumbass AC has no idea what he's talking about posts dumb shit. Bar has been met.
Re: (Score:2)
The intelligent thing to do is to only invest in what you honestly want to see succeed and grow, knowing the actual RoI (better goods and/or services) will be of benefit to you and the lives of
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. What "really" happens (that term doesn't really have any relevant meaning in this, nothing is really "real" here) is a rather perverted bet: I buy from you the right to sell you this stock X days from now at the current price. At that time, I would technically have to buy the shares at whatever their going rate is at this point to sell them to you at the price we agreed today, what really happens is that in X days, whoever lost that bet pays the other one.
You'll find that in such a deal, shares a
Re: Don't do it (Score:2)
In fact you'll often find in such deals that the shares never existed in the first place and the trades were made naked.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do this with some brokerages but typically you don't. This is usually a game of derivatives with people who have shares underwriting options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They dont buy it, they borrow the stock from a vendor. So they borrow it for a fee, when the stock is $50. They sell it for $50. They don’t pay $50 to get the stock, they pay a smaller fee to “borrow” it.
Then the stock drops in value. They buy it back at a lower price, let’s say $45. They sold it at $50, they bought it at $45, so now they have $5 difference (and $45 value in stock). They return the stock, pay the fee, and keep the difference. The brokerage keeps the fee, and the stoc
Re: (Score:2)
And if it goes up they have to pay the difference.
Small time investors and generally sane people should not play with shorting stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of time trading comes from the money trade where it used to be a way to secure getting a fixed price in a volatile market. You sell me your stuff today for Dollars. I actually want Euros, so I'm in a pickle: You will only pay me in 90 days, but by then, the exchange rate will maybe change. That is a risk to me. I can now shift that risk on someone else. I buy from him the right to sell my Dollars to him in 90 days at a fixed exchange rate, and I have to pay him the amount that he thinks the exchang
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I don't understand shorting
You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that since there are so many people wanting to short, the lenders h
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depends on how you do it and how good the stock is. You pay a small amount to borrow money to cover the shorts.E veryone thinks it will go up, but you are trying to hedge your bets in your total portfolio. So the bank is lending you the money because you're paying some interest on it and there's not too much risk to them.
That's for a normal stock. But if everyone out there knows the stock will go down, no one is going to lend you the money at a low rate. For DJT the rate is 900% annually or so, w
maybe, maybe not (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, the company behind the stock is worthless. But that is not what people are investing in.
They are trying to buy favors with Donald Trump. If he loses the election, those favors may not be worth anything. If he wins, he may just laugh at anyone trying to call in a favor.
Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they can pay DJT $70 for a favor, but as the week went by, that $70 you gave is now only worth $46. By next week it should be less than what it was pre IPO.
Trump will never repay that favor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the individuals throwing away $70 that matter. It's MBS or Elon or Vlad throwing in a $ Billion. They are the ones hoping for a return on their investment from the POTUS.
Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this whole scam only took about $200 million to pull off. It is really just the 5 million shares that anybody paid actual money for. ...Which is why it is really stupid to try to play this stock on either end. It only takes $200 million to prop up the value of the stock (until the lock-up period ends in 6 months and the shares are all free for sale). So, for $200 million or so you either tank the stock or maintain its value. If you have two parties on either side of the equation with that money then it becomes a matter of who blinks first. ...But, come 10/15/2024 I doubt the stock will be worth anything.
Re: (Score:2)
At 6 month, probably worthless but before then all these short sellers are going to have to buy back from a small pool which will drive up the price.
Buying now for the short term isn't an unreasonable decision.
Re: (Score:2)
You have mostly retail investors involved. If the cash invested in DJT was meaningful to them then they are likely to sell if it is pushed low enough. If it is $200 x 1 million people then they are unlikely to sell ever. If the SEC starts an investigation then things get interesting.
Not worth putting money at risk on either side of the bet.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean retail shorts or retail buyers? I agree retail buyers can sit on $200 forever and eat the loss if it hits zero but if they're shorts that could cost them some money. Not enough to bankrupt 99% of them but still, losing $500 on a $200 short would suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Retail buyers in the SPAC.
Re: maybe, maybe not (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is already suing the investors. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Guess they thought it would be different this time and they're special and won't get screwed over.
Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:5, Informative)
Trump is already suing the investors. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Guess they thought it would be different this time and they're special and won't get screwed over.
Not investors, co-founders.
It sounds like they had the idea and did the work and so Trump naturally tried to dilute them to near zero. They sued to stop him and now he's suing to take away their shares entirely.
Trouble with doing business with a con-man, you keep finding yourself on the wrong side of the con.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets better, most of the principals behind Truth Social and the SPAC that "bought" them are now in court cases claiming the former alleged president screwed them. He promised the court in Delaware that the other major investors in Truth Social could rest assured that their stake was safe. Then after the SPAC deal went though, he filed a court case in Florida to claim those shares of theirs. Even the "insurance" company backing his bond in the NYS case to the tune of about $175 million has now been called
Remember GameStop? (Score:2)
Expect his supporters to prop it up similarly.
Re:Remember GameStop? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real skill in this whole debacle is the ability to talk the people who have nothing into giving their money to a man who constantly brags about how rich he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy bet (Score:4, Interesting)
Knowing the history of the con artist, failure is his signature move. Next to grifting. Which is what this is really about. He stands to gain millions of more shares (he already has 58.1% ownership) if the stock remains above certain dollar amounts for so many days. This Forbes article [forbes.com] goes into a bit more detail on the price points. He just needs to hang on long enough to cash out and leave everyone else holding the bag.
In addition, he has filed a lawsuit [cnn.com] (quel surprise) against two people who helped set up the company and who were also on some show called The Apprentice, claiming "they made a series of “reckless and wasteful decisions” when they tried to set up the company that caused significant damage."
Which is interesting because back in February those same two people filed their own lawsuit [forbes.com] claiming the con artist was trying to dilute their share of company stock. Coincidence?
We know the company is burning money [cnn.com] like WeWork did, and as a result the stock is plunging [marketwatch.com]. Further, there is no foreseeable way it will ever make money. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion this company, like all his other companies, will go bust. Who wouldn't take such an easy winnable bet?
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next to grifting. Which is what this is really about.
This is what really baffles me about TFG. I can accept that many, many people listen to him ramble and meander through a speech and still think "yeah, he gets my vote". God knows, stupidity abounds, but are they really so fucking stupid that it never occurs to them to wonder why such a self-proclaimed billionaire business genius is always asking for money?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but are they really so fucking stupid that it never occurs to them to wonder why such a self-proclaimed billionaire business genius is always asking for money?!
These are the same people who believe that prophets need their donations (just predict the # for the lottery) and don't question a faith healer going to the hospital as a patient. They are used to accepting conflicting things.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that they *revel* in their cognitive dissonances. Once they embraced the idea of believing multiple contradictory things at the same time, they found it a liberation -- an ability to be totally flexible and just go with the most self-affirming bias for any particular moment. They discovered that being stupid and ignorant really truly is blissful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but with added Jim Jones, for that special sick-in-your-mouth flavour
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to that, Evangelical Preachers are always asking for money. G-d, Master of the Universe, apparently cannot manage money. (paraphrase of George Carlin).
This guy has quite a few (Score:2)
The stock will eventually crater because the only people who would ever be caught dead on TS are the most rabid quartil
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Billionaire buddies. The stock has a market cap of around 5 billion. It would not take more than 1 or 2 right-wing billionaires to prop up the stock price just to troll the short sellers. Hell, Musk could do it with the spare change in the cupholder of his cybertruck. A LOT of short sellers could lose a LOT of money. And Trump and his buddies would be the ones making it, right? Hmmmmmmm
That's an interesting question. If it could be shown you were just trying to screw with short-sellers or even propping up the price to stay in Trump's good graces would that count as market manipulation?
The stock will eventually crater because the only people who would ever be caught dead on TS are the most rabid quartile of the GOP and Fox already has a solid lock on most of those people. But it’ll probably take longer than expected. If I was gonna short the stock, I would do it in about 6-12 months. Right about when Trump and his buddies start thinking about dumping his shares. But the real smart move is to stay the hell away from anything and everything Trump. That dud is toxic to the core.
December. A cratering stock is obviously bad for his campaign, so rich folks/countries hoping to influence Trump will prop it up through the election.
I wager Trump loses, but MAGA GOP legislators in states Biden won might keep things interesting for another month trying to reassign their EC votes to Trump.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
> That's an interesting question. If it could be shown you were just trying to screw with short-sellers or even propping up the price to stay in Trump's good graces would that count as market manipulation?
Absolutely not. Someone's reason for buying and selling on the public market is not a form of manipulation. When an executive or other with insider knowledge says shut in public they shouldn't be talking about, that can be manipulation. Using insider knowledge to buy or sell in an abnormal trading pa
Any time you jump on a bandwagon... (Score:2)
Even if it's to short a stock that's sure to fall...you're asking for trouble. A lot can go wrong, shorting a stock. In some cases the lenders go belly up, and you still lose your investment.
Re: (Score:2)
You lose if the stock goes up or trades sideways so you get stuck paying interest for an extended period. In either scenario you can set a stop loss to cut your losses.
I would avoid this bet (Score:2)
Careful there (Score:3, Insightful)
Never bet against the insane. You think that his dupes wouldn't bet the farm and life savings on saving their idol and messiah and to "stick it to da man" and wallstreet?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we're not taking away your liberty.
Just your money.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The $TDS shorts are spending so much to short $DJT now that it's just based on spite and not math.
The company just released its earnings report, as it is required to do, and lost $58 million on $4.1 million in revenue [cbsnews.com].
Additionally, it noted that its accountant flagged that the company's losses raise doubts about its ability to continue operating. Such a warning, however, reflects the company's current situation; the company could grow its user base, revenue and reverse its losses, putting it on a more stable path.
Now which is more likely. That somehow, through methods and means currently unknown, tens of millions of people will suddenly flood into his web site which has been in existence for several years now, or, like everything he touches, the company will crash and burn because it loses money year
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what the co,-any does, only what the stock does.
There are a huge number of shorts with a tiny pool to buy back from which will drive up the price long before the stock drops for having bad quarterly reports.
Shorting is very dangerous. Shorting an extremely volatile stock is madness.
Re: (Score:2)
>Any sudden influx of money would instantly raise red flags.
Are there regulations that a company knows who has it's shares? How do these "red flags" of yours actually work? Can a company keep a Russian oligarch from buying shares undeclared through a shell company, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always a bad idea to short a volatile stock. Small investors risk getting whip sawed and wiped out even if the ultimate long term price is zero; they can't afford to survive the ups to win the downs.
Re: (Score:2)
Market caps is just number of shares, multiplied by the last price the share was traded. If people by 10,000 shares for $100 each, that's a million dollars, but the share price goes to the stratosphere. That doesn't mean someone will hand over a few billion to Trump for his shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, as you astutely pointed out, market cap is shares * share price.
Share price isn't set by nothing- it's set by what people are currently paying for shares.
Sure, as you offload your shares, that price changes, because demand changes in response to your offloading, which is why a cash-out after an IPO involves selling your shares as quickly as possible, before the market can react to the flood, a
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That man already showed he doesn't give a fuck about the outcome of a fair election. Why the hell should I?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...seems to me he's doing a good job of destroying himself and others. What we are doing is merely reporting his steps in destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
The return of Weaponized Autism!
DIAMOND HANDS!!!
Frankly, we burnt down some greedy assed hedge funds last time.
Time to do it again!
Off to WallStreetBets...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth hurts. Downmodding actual truth does not make it go away.