Hacker News Reader

Comment by Closi | Hacker News Reader

An inability to buy means an inability to squeeze the short harder, and depending on how hard you have squeezed that can affect the overall success of the squeeze.

Also they apparently forced sale on some accounts, which combined with an inability to buy more, definitely affected stock prices.

View on HN

AFAIK the forced sales were margin calls.

No proof either way, with many accounts claiming and sharing screenshots of margin trading being disabled in their accounts, and it's more likely that these forced sales were due to the delay between RH and the banks, rather than being a normal margin between RH and the clearance house.

But you won’t lose. Right?

They forced sale on stocks at an earlier (lower) price. Some people were literally forced to make a loss.

Imagine buying a lottery ticket from me. I run the lottery. I print it out, look at it, oooh, you know what, I can't sell you this one. Of course you don't need to pay. Goodbye. Did you lose money?

you completely missed the point. the fact that the squeeze fails means that it fails to squeeze the shorts of the hedge fund, which is the one that will be coughing up billions to pay all the retailers. So yes, the retailers that are buying shares at higher prices will indeed lose actual real money if the short squeeze fails. And it will be due to what is likely to be market manipulation (ie screwing over its clients) by Robinhood

I think that’s GPs point.

it's not. Here's an example

Scenario 1: 1. Client buys share for $400 2. Hedge funds get short squeezed (because trading is not restricted by Robinhood) 3. Stock shoots up to $1000. Client made $600

Scenario 2: 1. Client buys share for $400 2. Robinhood restricts buying the shares (so the short squeeze doesn't happen) 3. Shares plunge to $50 because the short squeeze failed to happen (ie the hedge fund did not have to purchase the shares at higher prices, which is where the capital that the traders would share amongst themselves would come from) 4. Client lost $350

comboy is saying that the lottery ticket buyer is being kept from participating in a winning strat, which is what's happening to retail investors right now, which is the same thing you outlined. You're both saying the same thing. Not downvoting you btw.

it's not the same because many retailers do lose money because the short squeeze fails to execute. They dont just not make money, they buy shares for $300 and have to sell them for $100

Reply on news.ycombinator.com