Whole lot of people should switch to decaf and buy index funds.

Blue horseshoe loves anacott steel

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

Rendered Fat said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Did you mean to say "didn't" have enough $$?

---

Yes, thank you. Edited.

---

.

Then that's at least some justification for shutting off retail investors, but If money was the issue, why didn't they halt all trades? And why did they let the HF's continue to buy?

I readily admit that I'm a complete novice to this and trying to understand more than anything else.

---

Because the system is set up to allow unethical and financially risky investments for the hedge funds. When the **** hits the fan the unethical amoral hedge funds won't lose but the individual investors take the hits.

All the word jumble answers only explain how the system is rigged against the individual.

RSUs are usually unregistered shares and you cant borrow against them as they are not lendable. Very much a pain in the ass to get a margin loan on restricted shares.

I don't know what happened here or how they were short. But if they borrowed shares to short, they received a borrow from their Prime Broker like a GS or a JPM. The PB uses loanable shares from its inventory or from clients that have allowed their shares to be margined (sometimes for a rebate). It's all one pool but the size of the pool varies from firm to firm and then is determined by volume, rates, proprietary inventories, collateral obligations etc. So when one client liquidated their loaned shares its not a big deal. It's when a lot of clients jump in one side of the pool all at the same time that it can become a problem. And know smaller PBs need to borrow shares from time to time just to cover their own settlement and liquidity needs. Stock loan can be a crazy

I'm not sure that really answered your question...

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

And here we are, similar ****, unwarranted poorly backed highly risky investments by unethical amoral jackwads and who will pay? The individual small investor.

Quote:

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

---

Yes Bush did try but I am not sure that would have changed much of anything. You have to go back even further with the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again from the movie but also in the well researched book.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

---

Yes Bush did try but I am not sure that would have changed much of anything. You have to go back even further with the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again from the movie but also in the well researched book.

---

What movie or series is this from? Looks good!

LRHF said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

---

Yes Bush did try but I am not sure that would have changed much of anything. You have to go back even further with the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again from the movie but also in the well researched book.

---

What movie or series is this from? Looks good!

---

did anyone post this yet?

LRHF said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

---

Yes Bush did try but I am not sure that would have changed much of anything. You have to go back even further with the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again from the movie but also in the well researched book.

---

What movie or series is this from? Looks good!

---

HBO's 2011 flick "Too Big To Fail" based on the book by the same name depicting the 2008 financial meltdown. William Hurt plays Treasury Secretary Paulson and Paul Giamatti plays Fed. Chair Bernanke. Board favorite James Woods plays the CEO of Lehman Brothers.

HBO movie from a few years back. Too Big to Fail. Highly recommend it for anyone interested in what was going on behind the scenes in the 2008 financial crisis. The government really strong-armed the banks to go along with TARP. Damn near extortion, in fact. And it was Warren Buffett's idea that he gave to Hank Paulson on how to leverage them by using the FDIC.

YouBet said:

---

Albatross Necklace said:

---

---

Lord. Hope he's....joking.

---

You should listen in on some of the WSB live streams.

"This isn't investment advice. Normally, you should do research and figure out which companies are undervalued and invest in them. This is not that situation. This is a movement. We have been robbed of opportunity and we are making them pay.. even if we lose everything."


These are people who have been locked up for a year living off a measly stimulus check who justifiably feel the system is rigged. They have found their way to strike back at the system and they are taking it.

We need the stick figure explanation of GME like the mortgage crises was explained...

All the stick figures started saying FU, no FU, FU

jonj101 said:

---

---

The dude holding $50MM just fainted. To the moon indeed.

LOL.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

Sigh. Lovely spin but never admits or even acknowledges the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae implicitly 100% guaranteed those loans (as constructed by the Fed and by Congress) massively altered the risk profile and mathematical calculations of those investments. AIG was complicit and ****bagged for a reason but let's also not forget there were hubristic bad actors from the top all the way down and for decades. Leverage, like speed, kills.

Christ if I was deep ****ng value I pull out right ?

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

They forgot the part about years of politicians encouraging risky lending in the name of "equal housing" as they confused due diligence with discrimination....that lead to Freddie and Fannie originating the bulk of junk derrivatives that had to be bought. To sell that crap, they stamped a US Gov "backstop" on it.

Not excusing wall street over leveraging, but the gov fed it and created moral hazard. As always the road to hell is paved with good gov intentions.

Quote:

---

Sigh. Lovely spin but never admits or even acknowledges the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae implicitly 100% guaranteed those loans (as constructed by the Fed and by Congress) massively altered the risk profile and mathematical calculations of those investments. AIG was complicit and ****bagged for a reason but let's also not forget there were hubristic bad actors from the top all the way down and for decades. Leverage, like speed, kills.

---

I addressed that already with the scene entitled "Friendly reminder."

I don't think you can get the genie back in the bottle.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sigh. Lovely spin but never admits or even acknowledges the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae implicitly 100% guaranteed those loans (as constructed by the Fed and by Congress) massively altered the risk profile and mathematical calculations of those investments. AIG was complicit and ****bagged for a reason but let's also not forget there were hubristic bad actors from the top all the way down and for decades. Leverage, like speed, kills.

---

I addressed that already with the scene entitled "Friendly reminder."

---

Sorry didnt mean to come across as calling you out. just get perturbed at media interpreattions of events that seem to miss one very key detail. Its like when Hollywood describes how to make a bomb and purposefully neglects to mention one very important ingredient or process. Feels like the same thing sometimes

tysker said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

Sigh. Lovely spin but never admits or even acknowledges the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae implicitly 100% guaranteed those loans (as constructed by the Fed and by Congress) massively altered the risk profile and mathematical calculations of those investments. AIG was complicit and ****bagged for a reason but let's also not forget there were hubristic bad actors from the top all the way down and for decades. Leverage, like speed, kills.

---

Except they fraudulently passed off risky derivatives and ended up the companies only paid a fine. THE COMPANIES(stock holders) PAID THE FINE. The people responsible AT THE TOP should have gone to jail, yet again the individual stock holders paid the freight.

rgag12 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

I got the short-squeeze tip from Reddit couple of months ago...bought 50 @ 17 bucks and bailed at 33...I'm happy but damn if I'd just held on another week

---

I don't think many people saw this becoming the populist trade of the century. You made out good.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in 2022 when some of these redditors receive their 1099 and find out what a short term capital gain tax is.

---

I'm no fan of taxes, much less short term capital gains tax... that said, I'd rather give up 37% of something, rather than keep 100% of nothing.

Most all of these bad actors stretching the limits of the law to actually breaking the law come under Fiduciary Responsibility yet our court system willfully ignores that responsibility when dealing with large corporations.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

And here we are, similar ****, unwarranted poorly backed highly risky investments by unethical amoral jackwads and who will pay? The individual small investor.

---

This gov intervention in marketplace was bipartisan and well intentioned. Politicians tore down marketplace risk controls (they called "barriers"). They encouraged RE industry to participate. Freddie and Fannie went all in on "minority" low income focused originations. Wall Street got greedy overleveraging and was left holding bag when housing prices crashed.

These bureaucrats did below:

1) Provide credits and downpayment support to get people into mortgages they shouldn't have been in.

2) "make rules simpler " because we "certainly don't want fine print to keep people from owning a home, we can change the print" (yes, Bush actually said this)

3) why? Bc American Dream and feelings.

Clinton started it, Bush continued it . Anyone who solely blames Wall Street is missing the big picture.

richardag said:

---

Most all of these bad actors stretching the limits of the law to actually breaking the law come under Fiduciary Responsibility yet our court system willfully ignores that responsibility when dealing with large corporations.

---

Hence too big to fail was coined. It wasn't just the US, foreign banks were also subject to insolvency because of the credit default swaps they had on their balance sheets. Paulson caught unholy hell from his foreign counterparts when he let Lehman Brothers fail. (Although Lehman truly deserved to fail.)

There is another much older movie (1993 starring James Garner) that is quite entertaining about the hostile takeover of RJR Nabisco by KKR. Again true story.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

And here we are, similar ****, unwarranted poorly backed highly risky investments by unethical amoral jackwads and who will pay? The individual small investor.

---

Ahem...

Quote:

---

Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic home ownership is too big. (Applause.) And we've got to focus the attention on this nation to address this.

And it starts with setting a goal. And so by the year 2010, we must increase minority home owners by at least 5.5 million. In order to close the homeownership gap, we've got to set a big goal for America, and focus our attention and resources on that goal. (Applause.)

---

hedge said:

---

Christ if I was deep ****ng value I pull out right ?

---

Interestingly enough, no.

This thing changed from an investment club strat sharing forum into an iconic/historic moment - and he is at the center of it. If he sells many others will sell, and I think he is fully aware of it.

I can't say how long the hive will stay intact, but its really remarkable to see the appearance of solidarity they have thus far. As has been pointed out on other posts, this appears to be another example in society where people are really pushing against what they view a hollow system that doesn't support the interests of the common individual.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

Most all of these bad actors stretching the limits of the law to actually breaking the law come under Fiduciary Responsibility yet our court system willfully ignores that responsibility when dealing with large corporations.

---

Hence too big to fail was coined. It wasn't just the US, foreign banks were also subject to insolvency because of the credit default swaps they had on their balance sheets. Paulson caught unholy hell from his foreign counterparts when he let Lehman Brothers fail. (Although Lehman truly deserved to fail.)

There is another much older movie (1993 starring James Garner) that is quite entertaining about the hostile takeover of RJR Nabisco by KKR. Again true story.

---

For anyone that likes this or To Big To Fail, I highly suggest reading Roger Lowenstein's When Genius Failed. It's almost a prequel to TBTF and gives very interesting insight as to why Bear Stearns was treated the way they were. And also Michael Lewis' Liar's Poker if you want to know more about Meriwether and LT Capital. Both are pretty easy reads and you dont need a lot of financial background to understand what's going on.

thirdcoast said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

tysker said:

---

richardag said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

cone said:

---

the big difference being in 2008 there were second and third order impacts to scare the living **** out of Main Street

that isn't present here. just a giant L hung over power players necks. and they can't scare us about it and they won't take the L either. so yeah people are pissed.

---

I posted elsewhere yesterday... 2008 was ugly, and big players got taken out (then bailed out) that should have gone down. Unfortunately when they were going down they locked up the capital markets. With their collapse bad people would have lost everything, and I'm ok with that, but in their collapse they were going to take the rest of the US economy and perhaps by default the global economy with them. Their downfall looked to completely grind the gears of the entire US economy to a halt. Ultimately, yes we could and would have recovered but the side effects would have been disastrous and the pain would have been far more widespread and longer lasting.

---

Did any of the people who cause this go to jail?

---

Probably not. What did anyone do wrong? Who was damaged besides the HF and their investors?

---

derivatives

---

This sums it up very well.

---

This explains the unethical amoral behavior, some of it quite illegal, but the ending statement is bull**** when it was said, "no one wanted to regulate this behavior". President Bush did, but was stonewalled by the political machine, swamp if you will, who paid the price? The American public, not a single one of these *******s ended up in jail for crushing the world economy.

And here we are, similar ****, unwarranted poorly backed highly risky investments by unethical amoral jackwads and who will pay? The individual small investor.

---

This gov intervention in marketplace was bipartisan and well intentioned. Politicians tore down marketplace risk controls (they called "barriers"). They encouraged RE industry to participate. Freddie and Fannie went all in on "minority" low income focused originations. Wall Street got greedy overleveraging and was left holding bag when housing prices crashed.

These bureaucrats did below:

1) Provide credits and downpayment support to get people into mortgages they shouldn't have been in.

2) "make rules simpler " because we "certainly don't want fine print to keep people from owning a home, we can change the print" (yes, Bush actually said this)

3) why? Bc American Dream and feelings.

Clinton started it, Bush continued it . Anyone who solely blames Wall Street is missing the big picture.

---

My mistake, the argument for regulations regarding credit swaps came after the meltdown in the market.

This situation just made me think of the song "Bang" by AJR.

not sure why,