• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Wall Street Bets subreddit / Too late to buy Gamestop stock?

You may be right, but I was talking about trading technology "seeing" the course of sales on the market and getting in on the action.

They can do this far quicker and more profitably than a newbie Redditor deciding to play the market for the first time. In fact, quicker and more profitably than many people.

Right, they're doing this with algorithms on computers. By seeing it first, I don't mean a person is actually looking and deciding to make a trade. They get that little extra time to execute a trade or not, by looking at trends on what the retail traders are doing.
 
It's fair to question whether gamestop has ANY underlying value. Their business model is outdated. People have moved on to buying their games in other ways, and this trend looks like it will continue.

Trying to run the company like this will turn around is just creating a giant hole for people to dump their money in.

It is a fair question. The underlying value would be reflected in the price a mass electronic market would settle on if, theoretically, there was no price manipulation and other poker style trading games going on. At this point, it wouldn't be zero.
 
It's fair to question whether gamestop has ANY underlying value. Their business model is outdated. People have moved on to buying their games in other ways, and this trend looks like it will continue.

Trying to run the company like this will turn around is just creating a giant hole for people to dump their money in.

I haven't bought there recently, but when I was trying to get a certain console for under the holiday tree, they were one of the reputable outlets that I shopped at. Online, of course.

Just because Amazon is huge does not mean that there isn't room for other, more specialized, retail outlets online. Gamestop has the name recognition to make that work. Whether they do make it work is a separate question.
 
I haven't bought there recently, but when I was trying to get a certain console for under the holiday tree, they were one of the reputable outlets that I shopped at. Online, of course.

Just because Amazon is huge does not mean that there isn't room for other, more specialized, retail outlets online. Gamestop has the name recognition to make that work. Whether they do make it work is a separate question.

I'm not sure Gamestop has the name recognition to make it work anymore. Blockbuster had the name recognition to make mail-order video work. Instead, "Blockbuster" became synonymous with "dinosaur whose lunch is being eaten by Netflix (and then Amazon, and now everyone else)."

Gamestop seems to be garnering the name recognition of "dinosaur whose lunch is being eaten by Steam, GOG, and every console game store."
 
I'm not sure Gamestop has the name recognition to make it work anymore. Blockbuster had the name recognition to make mail-order video work. Instead, "Blockbuster" became synonymous with "dinosaur whose lunch is being eaten by Netflix (and then Amazon, and now everyone else)."

Gamestop seems to be garnering the name recognition of "dinosaur whose lunch is being eaten by Steam, GOG, and every console game store."

Fair, I am not their target demo. I'm an old who has kids who game, not an old who games.

Gamestop was the neighborhood store that allowed me to feed that side of them when they were growing up, just as my folks took me to the local record store to buy tapes.

I wonder if they see the Blockbuster writing on the wall and can turn things around. I don't know, but the Chewy guy thinks there is a chance, right?
 
It is a fair question. The underlying value would be reflected in the price a mass electronic market would settle on if, theoretically, there was no price manipulation and other poker style trading games going on. At this point, it wouldn't be zero.

That is not where a companies underlying value comes from, and real value could well be zero. Business value comes from their ability to earn money for their investors, companies that can't be expected to earn money should have no value. Even if the business has no value the company may own assets that are worth something, but this goes towards paying off any debts first.
 
I haven't bought there recently, but when I was trying to get a certain console for under the holiday tree, they were one of the reputable outlets that I shopped at. Online, of course.

Just because Amazon is huge does not mean that there isn't room for other, more specialized, retail outlets online. Gamestop has the name recognition to make that work. Whether they do make it work is a separate question.

One of the criticisms of GameStop is that they were too slow to respond to the shifting market and are poorly positioned in the online space. Game consoles are not something that require a specialty retailer online, and the games themselves (where the money I actually made) has moved to digital distribution. GameStop just isn’t needed in the distribution chain anymore. They are as much a dead-end as Blockbuster was 2 decades ago for movies.
 
I wonder if they see the Blockbuster writing on the wall and can turn things around.

It's too late for that. The service they provide is no longer required. The only thing left for Gamestop is to close store after store and try to scrape whatever earnings they can from what's left of their business model. Trying to rebuild the company at this point is almost certainly throwing away shareholder money.

As a trivia note there is 1 Blockbuster store in the entire world and it is trying to stay afloat by selling sleepovers on Airbnb.
 
One of the criticisms of GameStop is that they were too slow to respond to the shifting market and are poorly positioned in the online space. Game consoles are not something that require a specialty retailer online, and the games themselves (where the money I actually made) has moved to digital distribution. GameStop just isn’t needed in the distribution chain anymore. They are as much a dead-end as Blockbuster was 2 decades ago for movies.

You are partially right. More and more However, sometimes people want that "quick fix" of buying something and not waiting for it to be shipped. Especially for hardware. But also the games themselves. Theres a few problems with the online dist model. First it takes time to wait for them to download... then there are data caps. I was on a 300GB per month with a DSL provider for a few years, when a single game eats up 50GB or more that can be problematic. Even now I'm on a 1.2GB data cap with Comcast the only other option here. Blockbusters not exactly analogous, people still do buy optical media. Its just, why would you rent when you can stream? Other than people on ****** DSL like I was I guess.

Gamestop's biggest problem is that they became annoying to shop at. You are constantly pushed to buy warranties and add-on BS. Years ago that happened to me and I almost just walked out of the store, I don't want a 10 minute sales pitch when I buy something. If I need something now I just buy it at Wally world, even though its a frickin zoo.
 
Last edited:
You are partially right. More and more However, sometimes people want that "quick fix" of buying something and not waiting for it to be shipped. Especially for hardware. But also the games themselves. Theres a few problems with the online dist model. First it takes time to wait for them to download... then there are data caps. I was on a 300GB per month with a DSL provider for a few years, when a single game eats up 50GB or more that can be problematic. Even now I'm on a 1.2GB data cap with Comcast the only other option here. Blockbusters not exactly analogous, people still do buy optical media. Its just, why would you rent when you can stream? Other than people on ****** DSL like I was I guess.

Gamestop's biggest problem is that they became annoying to shop at. You are constantly pushed to buy warranties and add-on BS. Years ago that happened to me and I almost just walked out of the store, I don't want a 10 minute sales pitch when I buy something. If I need something now I just buy it at Wally world, even though its a frickin zoo.

You can buy game consoles anywhere and Walmart can do higher volumes at lower prices. I was a diehard for buying PC games in retail stores, but even I gave up over a decade ago when the only thing in the retail box was a code to add the game to your Steam account.

I’m not quite sure why consoles have held to physical media longer, because Sony and Microsoft could easily distribute everything digitally the Apple does with the Apple Store, Google does with the Play Store and Steam does for PC games. Getting software that way is the norm these days, and the only reason I can think of for continued use of physical media for console games is so they can sell you another copy when it breaks.
 
You can buy game consoles anywhere and Walmart can do higher volumes at lower prices. I was a diehard for buying PC games in retail stores, but even I gave up over a decade ago when the only thing in the retail box was a code to add the game to your Steam account.

I’m not quite sure why consoles have held to physical media longer, because Sony and Microsoft could easily distribute everything digitally the Apple does with the Apple Store, Google does with the Play Store and Steam does for PC games. Getting software that way is the norm these days, and the only reason I can think of for continued use of physical media for console games is so they can sell you another copy when it breaks.

There is a Gamestop literally next door to my nearest Walmart. I used to go in there on occasion because it was more convenient... but like I said they pissed me of. I haven't been a console player for quite a while, well except an Nvidia Shield TV. But I thought buying the physical copy of a game was now optional on the newest consoles? Maybe not. But for some people a Blu-ray sized download is problematic.
 
There is a Gamestop literally next door to my nearest Walmart. I used to go in there on occasion because it was more convenient... but like I said they pissed me of. I haven't been a console player for quite a while, well except an Nvidia Shield TV. But I thought buying the physical copy of a game was now optional on the newest consoles? Maybe not. But for some people a Blu-ray sized download is problematic.

Gamestop did have the benefit of having a decent used selection of both games and consoles that you can't find in generic box stores, but the prices were generally pretty poor compared to eBay. Their trade-in values were notoriously awful .
 
That is not where a companies underlying value comes from, and real value could well be zero. Business value comes from their ability to earn money for their investors, companies that can't be expected to earn money should have no value. Even if the business has no value the company may own assets that are worth something, but this goes towards paying off any debts first.

You should probably have read my comment more carefully. I never claimed a company's underlying value "comes from" its stock price. I said it's underlying value will be reflected by that price, aside from the poker style strategies used by short term traders. In this case, "reflected by" is actually the opposite of "comes from".

Edit: My apologies. Even though the share price will reflect, in part, the underlying value... it determines the market value. You're right.
 
Last edited:
You should probably have read my comment more carefully. I never claimed a company's underlying value "comes from" its stock price. I said it's underlying value will be reflected by that price,

Not always.

aside from the poker style strategies used by short term traders. In this case, "reflected by" is actually the opposite of "comes from".

You have it fundamentally backwards. Short sellers seek out companies that are trading above their underlying value and have the effect of pushing overvalued stock prices down to something more reflective of it's underlying value.

When short sellers are forced out of the market bubbles begin to expand rapidly. this is when normal people lose a LOT of money because they usually end up buying the shares at inflated prices then take a big loss when the price declines to something more reflective of the companies underlying value.


What typically happens at this point is that the people who bough the shares when they are overvalued see that the remaining short sellers are making money while they are losing money and blame them for "taking my money" when in fact the people who took their money were in fact the ones who sold them overpriced shares in the first place. Often, but not always, the loss could have been avoided if there were enough short sellers to keep the price from blowing up in the first place.
 
Not always.



You have it fundamentally backwards. Short sellers seek out companies that are trading above their underlying value and have the effect of pushing overvalued stock prices down to something more reflective of it's underlying value.

When short sellers are forced out of the market bubbles begin to expand rapidly. this is when normal people lose a LOT of money because they usually end up buying the shares at inflated prices then take a big loss when the price declines to something more reflective of the companies underlying value.


What typically happens at this point is that the people who bough the shares when they are overvalued see that the remaining short sellers are making money while they are losing money and blame them for "taking my money" when in fact the people who took their money were in fact the ones who sold them overpriced shares in the first place. Often, but not always, the loss could have been avoided if there were enough short sellers to keep the price from blowing up in the first place.


I understand what you are trying to say here, but I don’t think it’s so cut and dried. It’s not like we can say short sellers are always right; they are gambling too.

A company’s value on the stock market is always based on perception. A conservative investors view of the company might be based on its fundamentals: cash flow, assets, etc etc. But other investors might see something encouraging beyond what the fundamentals show -those intangibles that aren’t reflected in fundamentals -new management, a promising new product. Another investor might value a company lower than a fundamental analysis would based on other intangibles like a shift in the company’s core business or bad management. Still other investors are pure speculators, trying to cash in based on their own hunches or analysis of short interest, etc.

In the end, a company’s stock price is reflective of the collective perception of all those things: bulls, bears and crazy people.

So when you buy a stock, it’s not that someone is selling you something overvalued or undervalued -those are just perceptions. You are, presumably, buying the stock at the price you are buying it because YOU think the price will go up. They are selling it because they want to realize a gain or stop a loss -they think the price will come down.

You seem to be describing a very efficient market that behaves in predictable ways. That simply does not exist.
 
I understand what you are trying to say here, but I don’t think it’s so cut and dried. It’s not like we can say short sellers are always right; they are gambling too.

I never said they were always right, but if they are wrong the stock will en up undervalued until value investors swoop in to capitalize on that opportunity. By and large value investors are pretty quick to snap up undervalued stocks. There is more risk involved in short selling so they tend to not be as efficient in driving down the price of an overvalued company.

A company’s value on the stock market is always based on perception.

That’s misleading at best. A companies real value is based on it’s future earnings. It also helps if there is a clear path for those earnings ending up in the investors pocket. (If a company is just going to squander it’s earrings on dead end business ventures it’s worthless regardless of ho much it makes)

These are estimates of future earnings, and peoples estimates may vary. You also need to assign a discount rate to perform the net present value calculations, and people may choose different discount rates based on their expected rate of return. I would not classify either of these as “perception” at worst they are educated guesses. Other metrics are mostly just ways to qualify future earnings or compare similar companies.
 
I never said they were always right, but if they are wrong the stock will en up undervalued until value investors swoop in to capitalize on that opportunity. By and large value investors are pretty quick to snap up undervalued stocks. There is more risk involved in short selling so they tend to not be as efficient in driving down the price of an overvalued company.



That’s misleading at best. A companies real value is based on it’s future earnings.
Not even, because no one has a crystal ball to see what the future earnings wil be. I would argue that, when it comes to stock price, there is no such thing as a company's "real value." The only thing that exists is its "perceived value," aka, the price someone is willing to buy/sell it at.

It also helps if there is a clear path for those earnings ending up in the investors pocket. (If a company is just going to squander it’s earrings on dead end business ventures it’s worthless regardless of ho much it makes)
If a company doesn't pay dividends, which is most companies, then the only way that company is going to put money in shareholder's pockets is to create a perception of value so other investors will buy the shares at a higher price. That's it. They create that perception by announcing leadership changes, new products, a pivot to a new market, etc. But no one can predict whether or not those things will actually increase the earnings, and thus, the value of the company.

These are estimates of future earnings, and peoples estimates may vary. You also need to assign a discount rate to perform the net present value calculations, and people may choose different discount rates based on their expected rate of return. I would not classify either of these as “perception” at worst they are educated guesses. Other metrics are mostly just ways to qualify future earnings or compare similar companies.

Ok, but none of that is predicitive of the future. They are, at best, educated guesses. They are attempts to objectively analyze whether or not a particular valuation is justified. And that's important because they are 1)attempts and 2)not really all that objective as you illustrate by admitting that estimates vary, you need to assign a discount rate (which is different, depending on the analyst), and come up with an expected rate of return, which is really just a guess.

If it were anything better than a guess, then managed funds would always and easily outperform index funds.
 
Last edited:
These are estimates of future earnings, and peoples estimates may vary. You also need to assign a discount rate to perform the net present value calculations, and people may choose different discount rates based on their expected rate of return. I would not classify either of these as “perception” at worst they are educated guesses. Other metrics are mostly just ways to qualify future earnings or compare similar companies.

Ok, but none of that is predicitive of the future. They are, at best, educated guesses. They are attempts to objectively analyze whether or not a particular valuation is justified. And that's important because they are 1)attempts and 2)not really all that objective as you illustrate by admitting that estimates vary, you need to assign a discount rate (which is different, depending on the analyst), and come up with an expected rate of return, which is really just a guess.

If it were anything better than a guess, then managed funds would always and easily outperform index funds.

That last part isn't quite right. Index funds have two advantages: They don't have to pay for research and they generally spend much less on trading costs because they aren't trading as often as managed funds.

Probably more important, new information about a company is incorporated in the price very quickly, limiting what a managed fund can earn. Efficient market theory isn't perfect, but it's mostly right.
 
Not even, because no one has a crystal ball to see what the future earnings wil be.


Estimate of future earnings don’t need to be prefect they just need to be in the right range. This is why are called estimates. When something unexpected comes along that changes all the estimates Stock prices make will change significantly on the news.
If it were anything better than a guess, then managed funds would always and easily outperform index funds.

Index earnings respond to border economic conditions, which helps make them easier to estimate than individual companies.

Furthermore, they are not independent of the individual companies that make up the index. They are a composite of all the stock picking that goes on for the individual companies. The major reason why its hard to beat the performance of an index fund is that the people picking stocks are actually really good at their job. Cases where companies are over\under valued get jumped on quickly and the resulting selling or buying pushes the price closer to it’s real value and takes that opportunity off the table.

If a company doesn't pay dividends, which is most companies, then the only way that company is going to put money in shareholder's pockets is to create a perception of value so other investors will buy the shares at a higher price. That's it.
This is false. Retained earnings can be used to grow the business, expand into new business. Both these activities grow the size and earnings power of the company. This increase the estimates of future earnings and therefore increases the value of the company.

Retained earnings can also be used for stock buyback which increases your stake in the company and increases the value of your shares even if the company itself isn’t increasing in value.

It’s still important to keep track of how a company is reinvesting retained earnings. As I said above, if they are squandering them they may as well not exist at all. This is one of the problems with GameStop. For them to turn it around they would need to invest what money they have in new business ventures and have those ventures pan out. The prospects of this don’t look good, so they are probably better off returning that money to investors and letting them decide for themselves where it’s best used.
 
Lots of discussion as to whether Gamestop has any real value. Looking at their financials, the book value of their stockholder's equity is almost certainly less than $0. As of 1/31/20 the book value was $661 million and the TTM net income is -$679 million. Now book value does not equal market value, but as Lomiller states, the key is the ability to generate net income, and Gamestop has no reason to expect to be able to do that in the future. They actually got a bit of a break from Covid in that it unexpectedly drove sales up temporarily, but there is no reason to expect that to continue.
 
I hope the new millionaires who got their gains from Gamestop stock realize they're going to have to pay short term capital gains taxes on their winnings next year. When I was gathering tax documents one institution had a gentle reminder of that on their main page, although they didn't mention Gamestop by name. If these are truly amateur investors they may not know that, and blow their fortunes on other stocks, then be horribly surprised later.
 
I hope the new millionaires who got their gains from Gamestop stock realize they're going to have to pay short term capital gains taxes on their winnings next year. When I was gathering tax documents one institution had a gentle reminder of that on their main page, although they didn't mention Gamestop by name. If these are truly amateur investors they may not know that, and blow their fortunes on other stocks, then be horribly surprised later.

Actually, they have to make payment by April 15th of this year.... or pay a "penalty" which is actually just interest at the prime rate I believe. Which is very low.
 
Actually, they have to make payment by April 15th of this year.... or pay a "penalty" which is actually just interest at the prime rate I believe. Which is very low.

If they bought and sold in 2021 wouldn't they have until next year to pay on the gains?
 
If they bought and sold in 2021 wouldn't they have until next year to pay on the gains?

Correct.

April 15th is the deadline to pay outstanding taxes on the previous calendar year's income, so any taxes on income or capital gains earned this calendar year isn't due until April 15th, 2022.
 
Correct.

April 15th is the deadline to pay outstanding taxes on the previous calendar year's income, so any taxes on income or capital gains earned this calendar year isn't due until April 15th, 2022.

You generally have to make quarterly estimated taxes by the deadline for the quarter in which they were sold. That would mean by April 15th, 2021 for anyone selling GME in January of this year (for example), unless it was in a tax-sheltered account.

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/estimated-...ns-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/020316/estimated-tax-deadlines-2016.asp

If you don't, you must pay a penalty. Which sounds scary, but its just an interest payment on top of what you would've owed anyways. I know this. I've had to do it before.
 
Last edited:
You generally have to make quarterly estimated taxes by the deadline for the quarter in which they were sold. That would mean by April 15th, 2021 for anyone selling GME in January of this year (for example), unless it was in a tax-sheltered account.

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/estimated-...ns-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/020316/estimated-tax-deadlines-2016.asp

If you don't, you must pay a penalty. Which sounds scary, but its just an interest payment on top of what you would've owed anyways. I know this. I've had to do it before.

But that all talks about taxpayers "who subsist on investment income"...what does that mean, as opposed to taxpayers who have investment income but it isn't a significant amount? And that business about it apply if you subtract your total tax from withholding...does that mean you only owe if you make more than $1000 in a capital gain? I've had investments for years, but never done anything besides plug in the numbers I get on 1099s into my annual return. I've never seen mention from the IRS of anything about this...do I just not make enough from investing to matter?

(Why can't they write this crap clearly? I am by no means not erudite but the convoluted prolixities of IRS speak confound me!)
 
But that all talks about taxpayers "who subsist on investment income"...what does that mean, as opposed to taxpayers who have investment income but it isn't a significant amount? And that business about it apply if you subtract your total tax from withholding...does that mean you only owe if you make more than $1000 in a capital gain? I've had investments for years, but never done anything besides plug in the numbers I get on 1099s into my annual return. I've never seen mention from the IRS of anything about this...do I just not make enough from investing to matter?

(Why can't they write this crap clearly? I am by no means not erudite but the convoluted prolixities of IRS speak confound me!)

If its under $1000 they don't care. Also, I'm sure in some years past I didn't make quarterly estimated taxes when I should've and crickets, but those were years where I made maybe 2 or 3k in capital gains. Then one year, it was more like 10k, and I got what seemed to be a very scary letter in the mail explaining that I owed a penalty. What I believe happened is I was just randomly audited one year since I reported more income than usual. Most small investors just fly under the radar.
 
Last edited:
(Why can't they write this crap clearly? I am by no means not erudite but the convoluted prolixities of IRS speak confound me!)

For the longest time, the publications weren't written with the common folks in mind. It was intended for tax professionals. CPAs and the like, where the inside baseball terms didn't need any real clarity.

The IRS is working on cleaning up some of this and trying to write things in plain language, as required by the Plain Writing Act (2010), but it takes time.

I no longer work in collections, but I do have some familiarity with the subject matter. Generally speaking, if you stay within the 90/100 rule (90% of current taxes withheld for the current season, or 100% of last years tax bill) you won't see much trouble. Let me sum it up with - just pay your taxes. Thanks.
 
You should probably have read my comment more carefully. I never claimed a company's underlying value "comes from" its stock price. I said it's underlying value will be reflected by that price, aside from the poker style strategies used by short term traders. In this case, "reflected by" is actually the opposite of "comes from".

Edit: My apologies. Even though the share price will reflect, in part, the underlying value... it determines the market value. You're right.

You have it fundamentally backwards. Short sellers seek out companies that are trading above their underlying value and have the effect of pushing overvalued stock prices down to something more reflective of it's underlying value.

When short sellers are forced out of the market bubbles begin to expand rapidly. this is when normal people lose a LOT of money because they usually end up buying the shares at inflated prices then take a big loss when the price declines to something more reflective of the companies underlying value.


What typically happens at this point is that the people who bough the shares when they are overvalued see that the remaining short sellers are making money while they are losing money and blame them for "taking my money" when in fact the people who took their money were in fact the ones who sold them overpriced shares in the first place. Often, but not always, the loss could have been avoided if there were enough short sellers to keep the price from blowing up in the first place.

I don't understand your point. How, specifically, do I have it "fundamentally backwards"? Are you confusing the phrase short term traders with short sellers?
 
Last edited:
You should probably have read my comment more carefully. I never claimed a company's underlying value "comes from" its stock price. I said it's underlying value will be reflected by that price,

Not always.

In a market as exotic and gamed as this, "not always" is pretty much a given in every situation. However, underlying value is generally reflected, along with estimated future earnings, in the stock price.
 
Last edited:
In a market as exotic and gamed as this, "not always" is pretty much a given in every situation.

If markets were as widely gamed as you are suggesting than it would be easy to spot mispriced stocks and actively managed funds would work a lot better than they do.
 
If markets were as widely gamed as you are suggesting than it would be easy to spot mispriced stocks and actively managed funds would work a lot better than they do.

I suggested gaming had increased enough in the financial markets to render your "not always" comment as a given. That does imply the market has now become wildly mispriced as a whole.

Would you please address the question I asked in post# 469?
 
Last edited:
I suggested gaming had increased enough in the financial markets to render your "not always" comment as a given. That does not imply the market has now become wildly mispriced as a whole.

Would you please address the question I asked in post# 469?

Forgive me. I left out the bolded word in the above post.
 
Robinhood slapped with biggest-ever penalty by Wall Street regulator

Robinhood is being ordered to pay about $70 million for harming millions of customers. It's the largest penalty ever imposed by Wall Street's self-regulator.

The controversial trading app was accused Wednesday by the Financial Industrial Regulatory Authority of "systemic supervisory failures" and hurting investors by giving them "false or misleading information."

FINRA's sanctions on Robinhood focus on large-scale system outages that hit the platform in March 2020 as well as its options trading procedures.

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/investing/robinhood-trading-fine-finra/index.html
 
Robinhood slapped with biggest-ever penalty by Wall Street regulator

Robinhood is being ordered to pay about $70 million for harming millions of customers. It's the largest penalty ever imposed by Wall Street's self-regulator.

The controversial trading app was accused Wednesday by the Financial Industrial Regulatory Authority of "systemic supervisory failures" and hurting investors by giving them "false or misleading information."

FINRA's sanctions on Robinhood focus on large-scale system outages that hit the platform in March 2020 as well as its options trading procedures.

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/investing/robinhood-trading-fine-finra/index.html

Outages were one of the problems FINRA found, but also seems to be fining them for allowing these rubes to gamble with leveraged money without making it clear they were taking a huge risk.
 
It's a bit interesting, because there is a subreddit for Bed, Bath & Beyond memestockers and their reaction to the parade of bad news has been mind-boggling and comical. Yesterday, Bed Bath & Beyond missed payments on some of its bonds - confirmed by the Wall Street Journal - and the subreddit began banning members who reported not receiving payments on bonds they owned (accusing them of being fake accounts set up by short-sellers to spread "FUD") as well as trying to "doxx" the Wall Street Journal reporter who confirmed with company representatives that the bond payments weren't made.
 
Gamestop at least made sense as nostalgia for Gen-X and Millennials; is there anybody out there with fond memories of their days shopping at BB&B?
 
Gamestop at least made sense as nostalgia for Gen-X and Millennials; is there anybody out there with fond memories of their days shopping at BB&B?


I keep confusing it with bath and body works. That place at least smelled nice.

I think I was in a BB&B once. I hazily remember it seemed like the household section of a gentrified Target.
 
Back
Top Bottom