I’ve been watching WSB with interest for a bit. This has not been what they’ve been about until January of this year. Before it was basically a place where the one eyed were leading the blind: someone would post their research on a particular play, like buying TSLA options for a particular date at a particular price because they think the phase of the moon and the mood of the CEO will line up to give the stock price a bump, and then everyone putting their 401k savings all into that play because it sounded plausible. Sometimes it would pay off, often it resulted in people losing lots of money. The “specialness” of the community came from when people posted “loss porn” aka screenshots of their accounts with huge losses, people would basically be really encouraging towards the poster. It was a sort of sign of respect that you risked it all and lost.

Actually buying stock and not just options is brand new to that group, and they have nearly doubled in size since January so it seems to be going through serious transitions. Now they are doing what they can to put the thumb on the scale to squeeze hedge funds out of their GME positions. The crux of it is whether enough shorts have been made to make this possible and the rumor de jour is that hedge funds misreport their positions. Whether this is true or not, well if you look at WSB posts they’ll say it’s obviously true. I am not convinced personally.

To be clear, WSB to me appears to be doing absolutely nothing illegal or wrong to manipulate the market. The only coordinated effort is to buy GME and AMC and not sell the stock unless it seriously goes up in value (current posts think it’ll go to $10k-100k). They suspect hedge funds are performing ladder attacks to lower the price, so every time the price dips the advice is to buy more. I don’t see how simply buying stock at market price is market manipulation except that it does have an effect on the volume of a particular stock.

WSB is an "extreme" example. I think it happens ALL the time in very common places (including HN).

Some types of market manipulation are truly a bad thing. I'm sure someone engaging in some of the more egregious cases could rationalize their behavior as "it's just guerilla marketing, everybody does that".

That's not wholly wrong -- the intent is really more important than the action in these cases. Were people buying GME because they legit thought the fundamentals of the company were good now or were they riding a bubble?

I'm already too far down the river though, because now we could argue about whether there is something fundamentally wrong about speculating on pricing alone.

From what I can tell, currently WSB is riding the bubble. Or rather their thesis is that a short squeeze will happen. In some conversations they try to justify that the company will actually turn itself around using the capital raised from selling the new generation of consoles, but quickly the conversation turns to the prospect of the squeeze. In other words, most people who are buying GME from WSB advice aren't there to hold the stock long term because they think it'll grow 2-5% per year because of the company doing well. They are in it to overnight have it grow by 10,000% or some such because "when the squeeze happens every single investor can name their price for the shares they own because hedge funds will need to buy every share available".

I am not a financial expert, but to me this seems extremely bogus. I am not certain where exactly the math is wrong, but it seems like a hedge fund can just buy the shares from the people they borrowed from, and those people will be willing to sell because the price had risen a bit. WSB on the other hand has no strategy beyond "a squeeze will happen". There is no agreed up on price at which to sell, which will lead to some people going right past, say, $10k/share price point holding out for $100k/share, and then the price falling back down to earth while they are left holding the bag, having bought in at $300/share or whatever.

> but it seems like a hedge fund can just buy the shares from the people they borrowed from

That's not how it works. A short position is basically the contract to deliver a stock regardless of its price at that point, so neither the short holder nor the party that gave them the stock in the first place actually hold that stock anymore.

Now I don't know this exactly and I am not an expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if short positions can exist absolutely independently from the existence of any actual stock. In principle, there can be agreements that only deal with the price of the stock. And something that can exist in principle probably also exists in the financial markets.

So whether or not an actual short squeeze will occur depends on the technicalities of the short positions.

The crux of the situation I don't understand is (a) where does the claim that hedge funds would have to buy all the available shares on the market comes from? and (b) what exactly happens if [a] is true, but I'm not selling my 1 share that they need to return to you the share they borrowed? In this case, do they pay a penalty, does they go out of business and you don't get your share back, or does the whole system collapse on itself?

a) (hopefully) comes from an analysis of standardized and published contracts ("short positions"). Presumably, a hedge fund has to publicly announce which such positions they hold. So in theory, you should be able to dog through the data and sum up all the positions. If people on wsb did this, if it even works that way, I don't know.

Regarding b) I presume some clauses of said contracts are going to be used. Probably there is a part about some additional payments. Alternatively, the short positions could be extended (for a hefty price, I assume) or in the worst case courts and lawyers will get involved. Interestingly, some of the lenders don't even own the stock they lend. Sometimes they manage other people's stock. When these owners notice that they cannot sell their stock during a short squeeze, then things will get interesting.

When you know CompanyA fires a bunch of people, the price goes up because of the perception that the company will have more capital to leverage. Knowing that an event has happened or expect the consequence of an event (CompanyA gets sued for patent violation) to have an effect on the company, changes the stock price through participation. GME is an interesting case where the event is perceived to be a complex situation with an outcome that is believed to be good for participants, increasing participation and driving the price up. I don't see how it's special, other than someone with a lot of money made a plan that motivated participants to believe in that plan, then play against it.

The difference is that the value of GME isn't in any way connected to its fundamentals here. It is only valuable because of the (supposed) overshorting. Basically, the way I understand it is that everyone is playing poker with tin poker chips. By themselves the poker chips are nearly worthless (tin is cheap), but because suddenly someone owes someone else a whole lot of these chips and there are real green dollars attached to that IOW, the tin chips suddenly are worth a lot. Once that debt is repaid, they become worth only what the tin is worth.

In other words, when the guy that started it all (Roaring Kitty/DFV) testified before congress that the only reason he was buying GME was because he fundamentally thought they were going to be a profitable corporation, that was bullshit. He talks a whole lot about short squeezing the stock elsewhere, so his denial that that's why he did it seems to me to be a lie. On a personal level, he seems shady as hell and the whole thing seems like a setup for others to be left holding the bag.

> January of this year

I think this has been going on longer, but the players are different now. It looks like it used to be a forum for smaller players and well capitalized individuals to pump small volume options positions, because you can make a few k off of retail investors following your bait in a tiny pocket of the market. Now it’s something that bigger investors noticed and are now participating in.

What's a ladder attack?

Not an expert at all but the way WSB explains it, it’s where hedge funds trade GME back and forth between each other, gradually lowering the price with each trade. It’s a coordinated effort toy manipulate the market and is illegal. According to WSB the SEC either doesn’t care or fines hedge funds so little for stuff like this that it’s worth it to them to do it anyways (as well as selling naked short and under reporting short interest). As I said, I have been watching what WSB is doing for entertainment value so all of this is suspect.

I’m 90% sure that this is just something WSB made up and isn’t actually evidence of manipulation. Seeing as you can look at the order books for almost all exchange traded stocks and see similar trading patterns. (Unless you believe that all stocks are being manipulated, which is a stretch.)

How do they sell a public stock back and forth between each other? How could one fund put shares up at a given price (especially one below the current bid price) and ensure their partner fund is matched as the buyer?

Wouldn’t a market maker need to collude as well?

Not saying it’s not true, I genuinely curious as to the mechanics.

Presumably, fund A places a limit buy at price - $n and fund B places a limit sell at price - $n - $0.1

But what about all the other bids and asks in the book? If you’re trying to drive the price down, there will be buy orders at higher prices your sell order will be matched with first.

Apparently it was happening in the over the counter markets. No idea how that would work but the lack of oversight may make it easier.

The SEC is on the hook to investigate anything reported to them. If they aren't investigating, then it's not being reported. Additionally, there is an incentive to report shady behavior(such as wash sales to lower price, as you described): https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

tldr; the SEC pays you a portion of any fine they levy against an entity.