Hacker News Reader

Comment by lm28469 | Hacker News Reader

I still don't understand how they successfully managed to make people think buying shares of a bankrupt company for $350 a pop was a good idea. They pitched it as the new BTC or TSLA but it really is just a text book example of pump and dump. They're not "owning wallstreet", at best they're owning a few investors/entities who took way to much risks, and that's it. The smart ones bought their shares at $5 and sold last week at the peak, any one getting in from now is suffering from massive FOMO.

Ronbinhood &co enabled this by gamifying trading, people are just one click away from betting their entire savings based on random social media posts amplified by mainstream media over coverage.

If you learn about something like this via mainstream medias or your friend who had no idea what trading was 2 days ago you can be 100% sure that you're too late to the party

edit: ok, not bankrupt, but clearly not going in the right direction. Either way, not anywhere close to make investors rich quick

https://gamerant.com/gamestop-out-of-business-in-digital-age...

https://gamerant.com/is-gamestop-going-out-of-business-dying...

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/investing/gamestop-store-...

https://www.ccn.com/gamestops-ultimate-destiny-buyout-or-ban...

View on HN

No, they didn't pitch it as a BTC or Tesla. Clearly you haven't been following at all what is happening. The pitch was to cause a short squeeze and then selling when it happens. So that only losers would be the short selling hedge funds.

And then the hedge funds said they did indeed sell their short positions, but no-one believed them and the rise continues. There is no way the only losers will be hedge funds at this point, lots of retail investors will lose money.

Believe them or not, they can easily confirm whether GME still has > 100% shorts[0], which it does.

0. https://www.highshortinterest.com/

Yeah. So a bunch of shorts closed their position at maybe $50 when the price was skyrocketing, and then reopened their position at $300 or $400 (if they timed it with the peak).

I'm not sure why people expect the short interest to change at all. If shorts thought it was worth shorting at $15, they sure as hell would be shorting at $300 or $400.

A lot of new shorts have also jumped in when the old ones left. The old shorts haven't necessarily bought back in, especially if they're running cautious after getting their faces ripped off.

The cost of shorting the stock is a percentage of the cost of the stock on top of the stock price.

And that price has declined by 80-90% in the last week along with the percentage cost to borrow. It's still expensive to borrow GME but if you have an idea that a stock is going from 500 to 0 in a week or two you don't care about the cost to borrow.

Kind of. But it really depends on your relationship and agreement with your prime broker.

That is unlikely the case. Closing the short would require them to write massive losses. Their best strategy has always been wait it out. They most likely purchased a bunch of options to lock in their losses from getting worst and are waiting for the price to drop back down.

I may be incorrect but I believe that data is somewhat outdated from the previous FINRA short interest report; it looks like the next report is due to be shared today, Tuesday Feb. 2 at 6-PM and the next on the 9th.

So, we'll potentially see if that is indeed the case either tonight or on the 9th which I believe will have the most recent data as the one this evening will already be outdated.

Linky: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/regulatory-filing-sys...

The fact that there were paid Facebook and Twitter advertisements for the news stories that "mevlin exited their short" makes me think they did not

Feel free to invest based on that evidence, but I won't be joining you.

How often are news stories promoted in paid-for ads on social media? Do you know? If you don't then you're basing a decision on one piece of data with no context.

Putting that reasoning aside: do you have a link you could share that shows any of these ads?

1. there's nothing special about 101% shorts compared 99% shorts

2. bloomberg's (unofficial) estimates says it's below 100% https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-01/gamestop-...

3. even if it's at > 100% shorts, it tells you nothing about what price those shorts entered at. if they entered at $300 they're not breaking a sweat.

4. Short interest only matters when a company gets bought out. At which point, the short interest is entirely rolled back to 0% and short-sellers take the ultimate loss.

Beyond that, it could go to 100%, 200%, or whatever people feel like. There's nothing special about 100% short interest at all.

That data is not updated in real time. Unless you pay big bucks short interest data is released every two weeks. https://www.nyse.com/market-data/reference/nyse-group-short-...

If you click on "GME" on that page, it will take you to Yahoo Finance. And if you go to the "Statistics" page, you will see that the number is from January 15th. The >100% shorts number is wild disinformation at this point.

You have no idea if these shorts were opened at $5, $50, or $350.

Someone who shorted when GME was at $420.69 is gonna be laughing all the way to the bank

from that site "Database last updated on January 29, 2021"

Typically these stats are updated slowly.

Short interest data is lagged. What is the source of this website?

it's exactly this kind of misunderstanding that caused this particular herd of new investors to lose out. I've noticed a lot of people making definitive statements of wsb, even though when pressed they admit they don't know squat. This is one of many reasons I like hn better in general --- people don't usually pretend to know what they're talking about.

The question is: at what price point did those new shorts come in at?

Those that shorted it at the high, are minting greens right now.

The rise does not continue, the stock is trading at 98ish bucks right now. Anyone still in is very much holding a bag right now. Yes I understand trade volume is apparently low, but the momentum is likely dead and I don't see Robinhood magically opening up the playing field again. They don't have the liquidity.

WSB would need to convince people who are already burned to move to a broker like Fidelity and start it up again.

Edit: Not to mention that yes the short positions that exist now likely exist at a price point well above the original shorts.

https://isthesqueezesquoze.com/

I have no horse in the race, but the press about the hedge funds closing their positions was rather suspicious, along with the silver thing right after.

So the idea is everyone who buys late can sell high and jump off the ship at the same time? Maybe I'm missing something, but if a whole bunch of people offload a stock, wouldn't that drive the price down, meaning a lot of people outside of the original short-sellers would still lose money?

> everyone who buys late [...] Maybe I'm missing something

The narrative on WSB was that you wouldn't be "late" buying in even late last week at $350, because the goal post was raised to $1000. Many people guessing it would go to $5000. Others saying $10,000. Followed by lots of rocket emojis.

Considering how people have witnessed the recent crypto rally generate insane returns, I can see how new / naive investors might think they're getting in early at $350. Especially when it was all over the news late last week and a giant billboard encouraging people to buy GME in time square just yesterday.

Edit: The timesquare billboard was actually last Friday. And only ran for 1 hour.

Cryptos at least have (somewhat theoretical) use cases with many unknowns that Gamestop Stock does not. In the end you will own stock in a dying retail game company and a pump and dump isn't going to keep its value up very long.

With cries of TO THE MOON! HODL! TO VALHALLA!

The idea is the short sellers have to cover first due to margin calls at a huge loss, then the retail investors unload.

Again though, the retail investors unload to who?

Everyone knows GME is over valued by an insane amount, who do people expect to be snapping up shares at $500?

The short sellers. They are short so they must buy the stock to close out their positions.

(not saying this is indeed what would happen, just explaining the though process)

> The short sellers. They are short so they must buy the stock to close out their positions.

This is incorrect. Short sellers only need to close out their positions if:

1. They cannot maintain them. If they can raise funds ( which they did ) they can maintain the positions. In fact they are probably shorting more, short averaging up if they can get a locate. GME yesterday was on a hard to borrow not on non-borrowable list.

2. Their shares are called back.

GME looks like a crazy stock around 1998/1999 ADEP(?), I think, which went from sub 3 to over 75 two days before Thanksgiving peaking with a couple of trades over 97 followed by a quick crash into teens and a really slow side into pennies. Some of the short sellers covered by putting up classified ads buying stock certificates from the cause the short squeeze by asking to deliver the certificates crowd a few years later.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Rephrased: "in order to close out their positions, they must buy the stock". I didn't intend to state that they would close them.

I will say though, price going up forcing short sellers to close out (due to margin calls, fear, whatever) is not some made up thing..it's called a short squeeze. I do not know what will happen with GME.

> I think you misinterpreted what I said. Rephrased: "in order to close out their positions, they must buy the stock". I didn't intend to state that they would close them.

They do not need to close out their positions until the stock becomes non-borrowable, causing their position to be called in.

> They cannot maintain them. If they can raise funds ( which they did ) they can maintain the positions

I think at this point for a lot of people its "hold until they can't maintain, this isn't about money it's about screwing over the man!!!!" - as they say the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

"The man" is much more liquid and much more capable of raising funds to maintain its positions compared to the WSB buyers of last several days.

Margin calls after today's close are going to be brutal.

Two days ago, the view (of some) was "WSB can remain irrational longer than short-sellers can remain solvent..."

Doesn't look like that was the case.

The people they targeted borrowed liquidity and may have even short averaged up. To be honest, in the end, the net effect of this thing may be something similar to a pump and dump.

I feel bad for the retails that are really gonna take it on the chin. At the same time, I'm sticking to my guns. We have to let all the people who lose in this thing fail, or nothing will be learned. It will need to be painful for people to be more careful in the future.

> only losers would be the short selling hedge fund

That's true for when stock went from $4 to $350, but who are the "losers" when stock goes from $350 to, let's say $7?

Also, who are the "winners" on that $350 -> $7 journey?

> but who are the "losers" when stock goes from $350 to, let's say $7?

Nonsavvy retail investors who believed in the hype and bought when the stock was significantly overpriced.

Sane retail investors who are about to enter a whole new world of requirements to get a margin account.

> Also, who are the "winners" on that $350 -> $7 journey?

The hedge funds who were willing to bet on the stock price dropping from $20 and who would've almost certainly increased those bets when the stock was in the $300s.

That's the irony, the hedge funds they were targeting, unless they were run by borderline imbeciles, increased their short bets. It's like WSB designed this attack never having heard of short averaging.

People will say that the hedge funds cheated somehow to come out whole, but the reality is that the attack was extremely poorly designed. (And that's being charitable and assuming that this was an attack and not simply an out and out pump and dump.)

Time will tell but my little finger told me that there will be plenty of losers, that the wall street people supposedly "owned" will be 100% bailed out, and that nothing of interest will change at wallstreet. The only thing that will change is that mobile trading apps will get major nerfs

> No, they didn't pitch it as a BTC or Tesla

It was a figure of speech, "we'll transform your $300 in $10000 in 2 weeks". People internally think about all the past opportunities they missed, we're talking about life changing money for a lot of people

Banks are prone to bailouts, hedge funds are not (in the traditional sense of taxpayer money, not private investment).

Many banks control trillions of dollars. Hedge funds almost always have less than $50B, usually by one or two orders of magnitude. If a bank fails, it's actually a problem for the government. If a hedge fund fails, it's barely a blip. If the limited partner was smart, it will also only cause them a single digit percentage decrease in their portfolio.

Hedge funds can amplify a systemic risk, but they would not really be targets for a bailout, the banks would be.

I think the promise of money being the driving factor for this is probably a strawman argument, at least as far as the WSB community itself. If you browse it, you'll see 'lossporn', with people posting screenshots of their personal losses on the stock performance. I don't think anyone prefers that to lose, but there are very definitely true believers.

Of course, as soon as it was covered by the news media, it draws people in who don't share that mindset and do stupid things. so... yeah

Update: they're actually doing it now, https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/lbdi8m/mess...

The current (and historical pitch has always be to "cause a short squeeze and hold indefinetely...). Literally every other message is about "do not sell"

If one were, hypothetically, trying to execute a pump and dump, what message/advice would be ideally the most common?

i understand what you mean, but why would you say that when it's dumping ?

Anyone who is long any stock has an incentive to encourage others to "not sell", whether the stock is going up or down. (The pump-n-dumpers are still incentivized to "pump" all the time, even while they're dumping.)

Gamestop is nowhere near bankrupt. One of the reasons that the trade took off is that Gamestop still has cash on hand and has reasonable (if declining) revenue. On their current trajectory they will go bankrupt, but it could take years. On fundamentals they could be a $20 stock but they were at $4 and still being heavily shorted, which made some people angry.

>> On their current trajectory they will go bankrupt, but it could take years.

A company with declining revenues, but lots of cash on hand, is ripe for takeover and liquidation. That places GameStop right alongside the quintessential takeover target: New England Wire and Cable. That was a good movie. Whether from bankruptcy or takeover, this could be the last party for GameStop.

Kieth Gill (AKA u/deepfuckingvalue AKA Roaring Kitty), the original GME bull on WSB, mentioned a PE takeover as a potential exit in his first GME video in July 2020

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZTr1-Gp74U

They’d be silly not to wait for it to go bankrupt and purge the huge lease obligations and debt

I don't think people were angry that the price was undervalued, the anger came about when it became apparent that hedge funds had been over-shorting the stock to the point of potential naked short selling.

I have heard no claims of naked short selling that came with any evidence. Not saying that it hasn’t happened, just that there are other explanations which seem to be more relevant / explicatory here.

Claims do not have to be true for people to get angry about it. I'm attempting to explain the narrative of emotion, not what necessarily happened in the market. I'm responding to the last sentence about "which made some people angry."

What other explanation is there for more than 100% of GME stock being sold short (genuine question)?

Alice lends his 1 stock to Bob. Bob sells it to Charlie (but is still on the hook to return it) Charlie lends his 1 stock to Dave. Dave sells it to Eddie (but is still on the hook to return it).

There is only 1 stock being traded here, but there are two loans (shorts) out on it with obligations to return it.

This is how debt bubbles are ignited.

Sounds like a precarious series of transactions to base an economy around.

That's finance!

What's really fun is that Alice and Charlie may not even know that they've lent their stock. Their broker, having a substantial amount of the stock pooled across all accounts they manage, may lend it out and still let Alice and Charlie trade their "share" -- since if Alice wants to sell, the broker can always sell on of the other shares from their pool. As long as the broker keeps a decent amount of shares still in their possession, and as long as all accountholders don't try to liquidate at the same time, it's fine. Even if you DID try to liquidate your position and whoopsie, the broker actually lent out all their shares and there are none left for them to sell, the broker could buy your share obligation with cash and you wouldn't know the difference between that and selling it to another shareholder.

This is the type of thing that gets some people's back up. It all sounds very "precarious" as you say. There is a reaction that says, whoa, that's way too complicated and abstracted, this whole thing is a house of cards just waiting to collapse. But it's kind of like a long-lived piece of software, which accumulates complexity from the need to deal with a complex world. Only new programmers have the urge to tear it all down and start from scratch -- because old programmers have found that the "new" system ends up reinventing the complexity of the old as it discovers the same problems and missing features of the "simple" approach. Today you see this happening with cryptocurrency.

> What's really fun is that Alice and Charlie may not even know that they've lent their stock.

last i checked brokers _cannot_ just loan out random alice and charlie's shares.

only once you've got a margin account and you've gone into debt can they use your shares. if you've got a margin account and you didn't read the contract, well... god help you, nobody else can.

as i understand it, loaned shares generally come from large institutional investors. the folks managing your index funds make extra money by loaning the underlying shares. (maybe that's what you meant? but the prospectuses for index funds make it clear that they do this sort of thing.)

Yeah, I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily happening to anybody who's holding a stock. It depends on your broker and the terms you've agreed to.

On some brokers it's an opt-in thing and you get to reap the rewards (interest) of lending out your shares. A friend of mine has been doing this with QuantumScape stock and collected a sizeable amount just from lending it through its December run-up, in addition to the direct gains.

My impression is that the zero-fee brokers like RH are the ones more likely to do this without your opt-in consent (of course you do agree to it across the board in their terms), but I'm not an expert.

I think Robinhood will loan out your stock and keep the money. This and sending order flow to Citadel are how Robinhood makes money, instead of from commissions.

> only once you've got a margin account and you've gone into debt can they use your shares.

As I read my customer agreement with ETrade, they are allowed to loan out my shares, even if I do not have a current margin balance. (It reads to me that they are pledged as collateral at all times, but I am not a lawyer.) It seems unlikely and inefficient that if I paid or traded my margin balance down to zero that ETrade would demand delivery of any shares I'd previously lent.

Just because that is all legal and works does it mean it should? or we should allow it?

Wait until you hear about the US dollar...

Briefly: a share which has been sold short can be sold short again by the person who buys it from the borrower/short seller. In practice, this often occurs due to regular market mechanics when a particular company is a hot short target. All that's required is a widespread consensus that the company's financials suck (in not so few words).

Apparently this is proof: https://www.nyse.com/regulation/threshold-securities

From this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946012

> Gamestop is nowhere near bankrupt

> On their current trajectory they will go bankrupt

...what?

this whole thing started because some high-profile redditors were bullish on GME, and then it turned into an anti-1% movement once the short positions were discovered.

so, there are two activities: speculation and investing. the whole problem here is that unwitting retailers were tricked, thinking they were investing when really they were "speculating" (more accurately called a pump and dump scheme). now its morphing into this "jail the oligarchs" nonsense because the people that lost money think they were wronged, when really it was their own damn fault the whole time.

> > Gamestop is nowhere near bankrupt

> > On their current trajectory they will go bankrupt

> ...what?

This doesn't seem hard to reconcile.

If I leave Seattle driving east my current trajectory takes me to New York. But I'm not yet near New York.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZTr1-Gp74U

Roaring Kitty (Deep fing value)'s first video from 6 months ago on $GME answers your questions. It started as legitimate investing with some memes on the side, and then turned in memes with some legitimate investing on the side.

This is indeed how it started. Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast also had a recent episode with one of the other main guys behind the original, fundamentally driven trade. It's well worth listening to. He makes some good points that the company was indeed undervalued in the teens and lower. Obviously, that is no longer where it is trading, and unless they turn into the Amazon of video games somehow, a valuation of well above $100 seems excessive.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2021-01-29/how-to-make-...

The hype had nothing to do with the fundamentals of the company. It was about short squeeze and gamma squeeze. The pitching point to buy the stock was that if all the retail investors buy and hold the shares, then ultimately squeeze would drive the price higher. Partially this is true and more than one squeeze happened for GameStop.

But for other shorted stocks like AMC, Blackberry or Nokia I'm not sure if the squeeze ever happened and I feel sorry for the people who are still clinging on to those stocks. It could take months, or maybe years to sell them with a break even price.

Do you think blackberry is ever going to hit a price of $28 again short of a market dynamics play like a squeeze?

Break even price? Through what, innovation? Currency inflation?

>> The smart ones bought their shares at $5 and sold last week at the peak

Loosing a bet doesn't make you a not-smart investor. High risk ventures can be part of any portfolio. In a game of high risk and high returns most bets don't work out. I don't think any less of hedge fund people who "lost their shirts" on this. That is a normal part of the game.

> Loosing a bet doesn't make you a not-smart investor.

People who never traded in their life and bought GME at $350 because reddit promised them big returns (I know a few in my friend circle) aren't smart investors taking part in a risky venture, they just suffer from fomo and have no idea of the risks

People who bought a few weeks ago may have made a risky calculated move though, I'm not denying that.

People who bought a long time ago and fomented the whole thing for a massive profit are definitely the only one I'd call smart, low risk, perfect execution, comfortable exit.

No one will make me believe that the people who bought at $350 are just as smart and taking the same risks as the people who bought at $5. They're not playing the same "game" you're talking about. Head or tails isn't the same as "guess the number I chose between 1 and 5000"

> People who bought a long time ago and fomented the whole thing for a massive profit are definitely the only one I'd call smart, low risk, perfect execution, comfortable exit.

I don't know if "being the subject of an impending SEC investigation for market manipulation" makes for a low risk, perfectly executed, comfortable exit ;)

That's not to call their position indefensible, but I suspect some of the people who fomented the thing will have to defend it.

Buying GME at $350 makes you... well it's not a good investment, nor good speculation, nor a good bet.

I'm not sure what's left that is "good".

This is not a normal part of the game.

The first time $350 was hit Reddit investors were still building up momentum - it wasn't a bad play given all the money pouring in. I personally executed several trades at and around $350 and all were profitable. The frenzy eventually died down and at that point there was no turning back. I feel sad for all my friends stuck holding shares they've bought hoping for the MOON!

But r/wallstreetbets was saying they could take it to the MOON at $9000!

In today's QE-Infinity Climate - it's not unreasonable to see Chewy's executive management turning GME into a successful e-commerce and brick and mortar play.

The e-commerce business is valued at 10x in QE-infinity terms, on adjusted EBITDA, which means it's not far fetched for the story to become $888/share right now.

The only thing missing is a constant parade of upgrades from the analysts.

Maybe if Gamestop pivots to e-commerce they can eventually come up with some way that you could buy a game online and have it delivered fully digitally, without even having to wait for shipping. Especially if they had vendor lock-in, where the games you've purchased digitally are available to you on any device -- but only through your GameStop account. Every time you log into your GameStop account to play the games you've purchased you would see the front page of their store with all the new games they've listed and the sales they're promoting.

That business model could really be worth $20B. It would be huge. Like what Netflix did to BlockBuster, but for video games.

But what's going to be their platform? Consoles? Doubt it, the manufacturers have a lockdown on the platform. PC? They might be able to enter, but they're going to have their work cut out for them considering there's steam, epic, and a plethora of first-party launchers (eg. origin or uplay).

Gamestop could build out a cloud gaming service like Stadia as one possible way to do it.

(Spoiler: that is steam.)

They're only 20 years too late on that. We now have huge established players who do that already very well. Steam and Xbox, Playstation, AppStore, Epic Store, all platforms already have a good store and a bunch of second and third tier stores. We also already have commoditized the "CD-key" reseller space with G2A and a hundred others.

But what about the antitrust issues!?

LOL, I see what you did there

While the greater fool strategy may generally be a losing one over enough iterations and time, it is very possible to make huge money on these plays in the short term. It is not always irrational to buy into an overpriced asset.

For example GME was wildly overpriced at $100 relative to basically every metric and yet it would have been an incredible buy.

I'm not advocating that anyone actually do this, I'm just saying that you are over simplifying by only acknowledging the value side of the equation.

The problem is that you need to sell quickly to take advantage of a short squeeze, and the people who bought at $200 could have made a big pile of money last week -- but if they still have those shares today, they will probably never recover their losses. Right now GME is trading at slightly more than $100/share, and while it might spike again tomorrow it will probably continue to decline. The squeeze is over and by now the remaining shorts are hedge funds who sold when the share price was above $300.

> GME was wildly overpriced at $100 relative to basically every metric and yet it would have been an incredible buy.

Can confirm.

Gamestop isn't bankrupt, in fact I would say they are in a decent position, at least in the short term. Not worth 350 a share but certainly not 0.

Even if not sticking strictly to fundamentals, I would say their fair share value is a lot closer to 0 than to 350 though.

I don't see what they have going for them. Squeezed by big ecommerce game stores and subscription services and free-to-play games on all sides. Customers seem to hate their meme-rific trade-in policy "Cyberpunk 2077? best I can do is $5".

From what I've seen on Reddit and TikTok, many involved are young and holding to make a point, regardless of the pump. A portion of these are also hoping to make it rich, and get rich quick schemes rarely pan out.

What if they've been tricked into buying now to cover the exit of early investors? People keep saying it's not about the money but the ones who keep quiet are making millions

> From what I've seen on Reddit and TikTok, many involved are young and holding to make a point, regardless of the pump.

Most of them bought in highly concentrated margin accounts. They will be force sold by the broker as a result of a margin call.

I don't know, there is some of that but also a ton of people buying like 1 share or 20 shares.

I think the legislation that may come from all of this is to limit margin accounts. When I signed up for an online brokerage years ago you couldn't trade on margin, which meant no option trading or day trading since when trading without a margin account, your cash has to clear. You had to go to their office and fill out forms and have a minimum balance.

With Robinhood everyone gets a margin account and the brokerage clearly can't support it with the tiny balances so many of their users carry. Their business model has forced other brokers to follow by offering free trades and everyone is on a margin account. This is a poor practice.

I'd support requirements like ensuring balances of at least $10k or more to qualify for margin. Robinhood is purposely designed to encourage day trading and other margin trades many users don't understand or that the infrastructure (not just RH, but the clearing houses, etc) can't and shouldn't support.

There's going to be a whole new world of pump and dumps like never before as so many people are hungry for quick money now and taking risks with their rent money they shouldn't be.

For what it's worth, the original guy betting on GME had a smart and well researched hypothesis and I hope he made his fortune. But the lemmings following have no business in this kind of thing.

> I still don't understand how they successfully managed to make people think buying shares of a bankrupt company for $350 a pop was a good idea.

Just because GME-as-ownership-unit may be overvalued, does not necessarily mean it is overvalued for GME-as-contract-closure-instrument.

If you want to focus on GME-as-ownership-unit, as a share in a retail business, that's perfectly valid. But that's not the only perspective.

This may help shine some light on the "How" and "Why":

- https://newrepublic.com/article/161182/bought-tens-thousands...

No one ever went bust by assuming the general population are morons with short attention spans.

It was a good pitch. Short interest of 140% at one point and the hope of a massive short squeeze. To bad those numbers are not transparent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com