Shorts explained: people want to buy stock, they make a deal with a price, let’s say 100 and a certain date they want to have it. The company they make this deal with get’s 100 and think the price will drop so they wait until the price of the stock drops and buy it for that price and give it to the person they made a deal with and then they have got profit. But if the price increases they lose money
a small clarification for some. essentially, they sell stocks now and buy them in the future. that means they sell for the price they are now, and buy for the price they are then. so if the price goes up they bought for a higher price than they sold for. thats what happened when reddit users bought shit tons of GME stocks
A better explanation would be something like: imagine you go to an apple seller, and you predict that the price of apples is gonna go down by half. Say they're $1 per apple right now, so you borrow one apple with the promise of returning it later. You go and immediately sell that apple to someone else for $1, before the price drops, and then you wait. The price goes down to $0.50 per apple, you buy two apples with the $1 you now have, you return one to the original seller as promised, and now you have an extra apple to do whatever with. You just made $0.50. Alternatively, however, your prediction could be wrong, and the price actually goes *up* instead of down, to $1.50 per apple. You will still have to return the apple to the original seller, so now you have no spare apples, and you're $0.50 dollars down. You have lost $0.50.
@@gavindonnelly5885 No more than buying low and selling high. Some one always loses money in order for some one else to gain, but in the context of the stock market this is considered acceptable because ideally all the stocks are going up over time, so it's just a matter of time before a share rises in value. Those who are smart and can out think the others get to get rich quickly; well those who make bad trades lose money. Honestly, I'm not sure if the stock exchanges have any real value today, they used to, but not so much anymore as it's almost impossible to get money for a business idea out of the markets now. But I look at it like a casino for the wealthy, if they want to place bets then let them, if you don't want to get hurt by the stock market then just don't invest, put money into your house instead.
I'm investing at least $150 into amc, although it's not a lot, I could make a lot of money. Also, it's really fun seeing people ban together and change something all at once. I thought about that when I first got into the market, "can enough people, if decided, just by into one stock and make a lot of money?" And it was answered.
@@kx7500 First, calm down please. Second, not really. Pure capitalism would mean that no one *can* make any rules, where as corporatism is when only corporations can make the rules. Obviously, because pure capitalism would require everyone to respect the fact that no one can make rules, it's an impossible utopia, much like any extreme ideology, and so would inevitably lead to corpoatism.
|-O-| I knew basically nothing about this. Xisuma is amazing at covering topics more objectively than most. Seems like he would do a great job in any conversational topics he is interested in. Maybe a full length podcast?
An actual explanation of short selling: I borrow shares from someone (in the multiples of 1000). I then sell these shares. I hope that the cost of the shares decreases, let's say from $25 a share to $3, I then buy the shares back at the discounted rate. I return the shares to the lender and I pocket the difference, in this case $22 per share I shorted. While I am borrowing the shares, I must pay interest on the shares borrowed. If the share starts to increase in price, the person who lent me the shares will either ask for them back or increase the interest rate making it more costly for me to keep shorting the stock. When I want to exit out of my short position I must buy back the stocks. This is what those buying GameStop are betting on, that the price will be high enough for long enough that the shortsellers will be forced to buy back the stock at ridiculous rates, trickle down economics at play if you will 😉
Watching this video a year afterwards, and let me tell you, the fight is DEFINITELY still on. So much more information has been brought to light behind this.
Short Selling: Imagine your friend goes and buys a dress for $100. You ask if you can borrow that dress and say you'll give it back later. Your friend gives it to you and you immediately go and sell it for $100. Now when it's time for you to give it back, the price of the dress has gone down. You buy the dress for $50, and you give it back to your friend, but you keep the other $50. But if you do that and the price goes up instead of down, you have to buy the dress for
@Isaac Chensince it's a stock you just buy an identical copy from soneone else to give back to ur friend and if you dont give it back to ur friend thats like not paying back a loan (i think)
X this video is not the proper one to conversate about the topic on but I've watched your video on suicide and self harm and I want to say thank you because while the thoughts have long since passed the video has helped me answer a lot of the questions about myself and has let me close a dark chapter in my life, from the bottom of my heart... thank you.
My wife said she would like a bike a while back, I get money and go to look at some but the store was all out because of Covid-19. She wanted a Switch so we look online and they are all out because of Covid-19. We didn't want to look at bikes or get a Switch because of covid, but apparently everyone else did... Your stock experience reminds me of that.
What Robinhood did of restricting buys but not sells falls under the definition of market manipulation as it resulted in stop losses being triggered as a result
insider training explained: meaning if you are a stock broker and want to incrase chances of getting profit , you can have a man from the company you want to invest in and give you confidentional(not public ) information which effects stock .
I had no idea what was going on with the game stop thing, so thanks for explaining it. Your talk videos are so good at informing me of current events and your words are so inspiring. 😌
Just gonna explain a couple of missconceptions here. 1. This is NOT a fight against capitalism, nor is it a fight against rich people nor big companies. There is a very common missconception about this that its against either capitalism, rich people or companies. Its easy to belive that because many political people has backed the buy GME thing. The whole point of this is actually a lot simpler. A guy on reddit have been investing in gamestop since 2019 because he thought it was extremly undervalued(wich it was). The hedge founds(in this case it was for the most part melvin but there were others to but i will just refer to them as hedge founds) basically just wanted it to die. There wwre many underlaying reasons for that but mainly because gamestop is a dying buisnes. So what the hedgefounds did was shorting game stop. But they didnt just short it, they did sometjkng called nakeed shorting wichmeans that they shorted over 100% of the stocks.(that is ilegal)(they shorted over 140% of the stocks) If it wasnt for the WDB reddit gamestop would have died just like for wxample toys r us died. So this guy on reddit points that out and tells everyone a soulution. If everyone buy GME and hold the hedge founds will be forced to buy all the stocks back but since the poeple who own the stock dosent want to sell them the price will skyrocket creating a "short squeze" Then everyone on WSB can cash out and make money. That was the plan and that was the reason behind it. To use the hedgefounds shorting position to take their money. because they wanted GME to die and end thousunds of peoples jobs and to make thousunds of peoples GMe investments worthless. 2. No the squeze hasnt happend yet and the hedge founds havent ended their short positions. Even tho maney mainstream medias tryes to trick people into selling(cough CNNC cough) becaus etheir nacked by the hedge founds. Many on WSB think it will reach above 1000$ this week. Dont spend more money on GME then you are fine with losing. It isnt a safe investment. Its a extremly risky one and if youre not familiar with the stock market you should buy.
Disclamier: Dont watch ANY main stream media when it comes ro this subject. Dont watch CNN, CNBC, FOX, ABC etc. They all want to downplay it because they are getting backed by the hedge founds. Maybe not all but its safest to just stay away from them all. If you want a good explanation search up Andrei Jikh on youtu e and watch his video about it.(Dont even read his comment section tho they are all full of scammers)
I think the reason has to do with the people commonly being seen as overly excited with what was done are heavily political and/or have a hatred towards rich people, however I may ponder what would've happened if it wasn't just gamestop I mean these people have the will and some now have the means so what is to prevent them from doing it again on a much bigger scale?
@@hejhej5833 Ye I know. I don't think even X understood why are people screwing over hedge fund. Cuz it was never about emotions. It was about people losing jobs because of scumbags that are already full to the brim with money. I don't support whole "Eat the rich", but they need to learn not to #@&$ with people, especially in situations like this where most are always at risk of loosing jobs.
i think its funny how i find out about all of these news by your videos. i am like not into this stuff but i find it very interesting to hear about it.
As for buying index funds, there exists SRI indexes (socially Responsible Investment indexes), that invest in things like green energy, and avoids things like fossil fuels, if that’s of any interest to ya’ll. they still invest in a very large amount of things, including things like Microsoft and Apple
Certain very specific financial manipulations are "technically legal" under very specific circumstances because certain politicians were bribed to make it that way or because the law just has not caught on - or caught up - to what is being done and no laws actually cover it yet.
A good example of insider trading would be for for example the ceo of a company shorting a stock and knowing that they are going to be making a decision in a few days that will crash the stock.
"Shorting" is when Another Hermit pays Xisuma say, 10 diamonds per one box of stone in the morning, and you two agree the product be delivered by the end of the day. During the day, instead of going to mine the box of stone, you realise the Barge is selling stone at 6 diamonds per box. So you buy a box from the Barge and gives to the Hermit that ordered the stone, keeping the 40% difference for yourself, without actively producing new products. If HermitCraft had a central brokerage system, and you had confidence in the Barge always selling @ 6 diamonds per box, you can go to the system and announce you will take every deal from Hermits willing to pay 10D per box, products delivered at the end of the day; the system then collects the payment on your behaviour, giving each customer a "right to collect" from Xisuma, (diamonds paid / 10) boxes at the end of the day. Say if the demand was so huge that the Barge ran out, or the Barge somehow got the information and wish to screw Xisuma over, or Grian simply decided to raise the price to 11D per box, you would (theoretically) still need to pay out of pocket for all those boxes of stone and give them to whoever gave you 10D per box in the morning. This is why it's a "bet" and possible to lose big on shorting.
Now say if there's something fishy going on with X and Grian, and Grian halts all sales from the Barge, while X goes around making outrageous high price deals with other Hermits, only for Grian to restock and flood the market later at a super low price, this would be insider trading. You are trading in the market as a normal transaction/legal transaction, yet X and Grian have an unfair advantage due to exclusive information. However if Grian announced some 72-hour excavation steam on Twitter, and X made the brilliant prediction that Grian would obviously sell the stone at the Brage at a low price, and goes on to make those outrageous deals in advance, this is not insider trading since the information was publicly available, and it's their fault to not be info-savvy and keeping up with every nooks and cranny of the globe. Things get "grey" (get it becuz of stones) if X has asked Grian in private if he's gonna collect the stone, if he needed the stone for a build, or if he has already agreed to give someone else the stone. The situation may be ruled illegal or legal, based on the exact conversation, if the two in the conversation has the power to make market decisions, and other variables based on the judge making the ruling and local implications of those laws.
Now what I have described is the shorting of futures, it gets a little bit more nuanced in stock shorting, as in stock you don't exactly make a promise to exchange any physical goods, the idea of "betting on the value of a single share in a company" itself is gamble-y as is, and the stock market as its own rules about when the stock shorted must exchange hands, how much deposit/collateral shorting requires, etc. And because you are trading for a company rather than a single product, which you may find a replacement from other sellers, longs/shorts of a company large enough creates a ripple effect on its products, its consumers, its investors and in the end, ordinary people. This is the price an economy pays for having a "free market", where the financial institutions play the vital role of making commerce/funds move around, and make the people with correct info and good predictions to lead the market. It speeds up booms and devastates the busts, so to speak, and it also give the large firms that have the algorithm, the computing power and the funds to collect and analyse signals from every corner of the world, an advantage, to the average investor that is only trading based on Google news.
Great video listening to it even after its all blown over, im 14 but managed to make 400% profit so I dont think putting money into was throwing it away unless you intended to hold on to the stock for some time
From what I gather, someone noticed that shorting GameStop stock resulted in there being much more stock in circulation than actually exists. Which meant that the hedge fund people left themselves in a position where they have to buy back stock no matter what price it is. So he told WallStreetBets and they went to town. I don't know if the hedge fund(s) were selling stock they haven't borrowed yet or reselling their borrowed stock twice, but the vibe I'm getting is that they took a risk by fudging numbers and are now liable for it. I'm only concerned for the inexperienced bystanders risking money they can't afford to lose in order to chase the golden goose. People who aren't savvy enough to pull out in time. Easier to invest in a bag of popcorn.
It's a very healthy attitude to look for different opinions, respect them and try to understand them🙂. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the norm anymore. Especially on the internet.
Insider Trading is basically using information that isn't publicly available. An example is if you work for Nintendo and you know Zelda Breath of the Wild 2 will be announced March 30th you can't buy up a bunch of Nintendo Stocks until the game is publicly announced.
I'm very much on the fence about this whole GameStop event. Preferably, the market price of a stock should be determined by what people are willing to pay for the shares based on the value of the underlying company, as those shares are a share of ownership of the company. With the wallstreetbets they don't seem to be buying on any valuation of the actual company, but rather on trying to affect other people in the market, in this case hedge funds. One of the issues with the crisis of 2008 was that some securities, like bundled mortgage derivatives, were increasingly disassociated with the assets that were supposed to be underlying those securities. I'm worried that this and any future actions like it will make something similar happen with stocks, which would make the markets more unstable. And in contrast to 2008, it will be with stocks which many more people are invested in, rather than the more obscure security types that are primarily held by financial institutions.
What the reddit guys did is collution or not? Collution is ilegal I think. First definition of collition I found: Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium.
How did you make Hermitcraft? (As in how did you make a server that you as the host didn't need to be on for other people to play on it, and not having them be on the same wifi as you? I really want to play with my friends on a Java SMP but I can't find a way to do it!
Xisuma you should look into the smp 500 it is a stock which owns a small portion of some of the top 500 companies in the stock market and has been going up consistently for decades
It is illegal. They didn't shut down their service, or have a problem. They stopped people from doing transactions in 1 (actually, there were a few more, one being Nokia) stock and even sold some on behalf of the users. That is illegal.
I think the real losers here are the gamestop employes (along witht he employies of all the other companies in this), because the stock has gone up artificially, so now everyone will sell, the company will go bankrupt, and all these people, the real poor people, not just your average joe, the people who already strugle to feed their families, just working behind the counter at gamestop, will lose their jobs, and these huge corrperations will survive losing a few billion dollars, they will recover, and the people who will be hurt the most at the end will be these workers, and i think thats very sad that people are "fighting for justice" and whatnot, but in reality, the people who need money the most are the ones getting hurt
To the person in chat that said they "just print money" I just wanted to point out that that is NOT true. There are complex and rational reasons for, and mathematical equations, that are used to determine the amount of money that is needed in the USA. This money is not "just printed", it is calculated so that there is no deflation and only minor inflation; and even quantitive easing is done with great care and consideration for the overall effects on the US economy. Also, the Fed does NOT buy American debt, the American people do, and also foreign governments. China only owns 1 trillion of the US debt; and 70% of the debt is owned by small investors in the USA.
Regulation probably won't happen yet. At the moment there is too much focus on what the POTUS is doing, since he is newly in office. Financial institutions can be patient though.
Comment section correct me im wrong so there is a lot of rich investor and they bet on shorts so they bet that game stop will fail and they have to returned the shorts at a certain date if i buy shorts for 10$ and when the date expired the shorts is now 2$ so i get a profit of 8$ ok so this millionares is taking a huge risk because you can lose basicly limitless amount but at the end of 2020 the stock price increase to 140% so this millioners lose a lot of money and people on internet get alot of money that's what im getting from just watching and comment i don't like the idea of shortings stock
X, if you're interested in a less emotional analysis of what's going on you should have a listen at Destiny's take. In a nutshell, he believes nothing wrong was done (morally and legally - according to what's know as of today, investigations might change this in the future), that, in the end, other hedge funds are the ones really benefiting from the situation and that, while the regular people that invested early may have made a nice profit, all of the ones that decided to invest late, and may have been misdirected into doing so, are screwed when the stock inevitably goes down. In any case, much like you, I don't know enough about any of this to know what's actually going on, so don't take anything I've referenced as the absolute truth - this was just the more complete analysis I've come across, that really took into consideration all sides of the issue :/
There are things that were illegal in this situation. Like the robinhood app selling stocks of people without their consent. They put up a notification that your stocks were sold at lower-end price.
@@NaughtyNina1240 That's certainly possible, but as far as I can tell those are essentially allegations at this point. Robinhood is denying it too, whatever that's worth, so I guess without a thorough investigation there's not much we can be certain of. I wasn't able to find any lawsuits filed for this reason either, but it may be too early for that, at least right now. www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22254857/robinhood-gamestop-amc-shares-sold-surprised-users
I'm all for screwing over scammy hedge funds, but Investing like this is like riding a seesaw. Either you're going to jump off, or the other guy is, and one of you is going to end up taking a fall. In situations like this, the other guy might not even realize he's riding the seesaw until he hits the ground. Besides, you never fully know the repercussions of messing with a company's stock value, although to be fair, the scammy investors are possibly already trying to ensure a stock will fail so that their shorts will pay off, so bounding it back up a bit might be a good thing. Who knows. I still easily take the side of Joe Average in this situation, but like with nearly everything, it's not black and white.
Don’t know if Xizuma will read this, but I recommend not investing directly in solar. It’s a better long-term choice to invest in the materials that’re used in them. For example, in 2020, you could have invested in companies like Amazon or the food delivery service of your choice. Or, you could invest in rubber, which is far cheaper (meaning you can buy more of it) and is required for all of those services, and more, to function at all. Almost every business today needs tires to move their goods. A particular food delivery service may be obsolete in 5 years, but rubber? Doubtful. I would do some research into what goes into solar panels and start eyeing those places for investment. One place I’ve jumped on these days is salt, since every vaccine requires a saline solution and the world needs billions of them. Obligatory I’m not a financial guru statement.
The problem with that logic is that billions of people have had to stay home during the pandemic and therefore they haven't needed new tires on their vehicles, plus all the other things that are made with rubber have probably sold way less because of the pandemic, so rubber probably went down in value over 2020, and will continue to go down over 2021, after which it might go up again, depending on production levels.
Gotta comment on something I've heard you say repeatedly in multiple videos that is slightly disturbing. Something I think you could think carefully about. You have said quite a few times in various ways that the truth and/or facts are subjective. By definition this is impossible. If a supposed fact is no longer true when observed from a different perspective it cannot be a fact. This can very easily make, as you have said, the truth an elusive thing. When arguments from all sides of a debate or discussion are challenged and evaluated critically very often it might seem that there is no truth to be found at all. Sometimes this is the actual case and the entire debate is the result of differing belief systems colliding. Other times however, due to our own belief system we might be unwilling to accept the truth as valid. Recognizing and addressing these difficult truths is essential to both individual and societal growth. Stepping back and evaluating whether a thing is a fact or a construct derived from one's belief system and world view is a critical skill which it seems the vast majority are woefully lacking. Frankly most people are completely uninterested in challenging their belief systems because it tends to force them to evolve their beliefs in ways that are often uncomfortable. So I challenge you to stop and reassess things whenever you arrive at a conclusion that says "the truth is a variable".
That is true for things that are concrete in nature; but in economic theory and in politics there are often competing beliefs; if we could say unequivocally that one political parties platform was better than the other party then we wouldn't fight so much, but sometimes humanity has no unanimously accepted truth, therefore we end up with multiple truths. Also, just because something is right, like reducing fishing for example will allow fish populations to be replenished; that may be true, but if you are the fisherman who is now out of a job then you might hate a law that reduces fishing. The truth here is objective, but viewed from a different perspective we get a different outcome. To the fisherman it is still true that reduced fishing is a good thing, but it is also true that such a law becomes a bad thing for that person. It's important to understand that some truths are objective, while others are subjective, and still others are unknown or lack consensus.
@@tidbit1877 the fact that you are referring to economic *THEORY* and *BELIEFS* already explicitly acknowledges that we are dealing with assumptions and opinions rather than truths or facts. That's what a theory is after all; and beliefs are even more fluid as they are defined solely by the individual in their own mind. In your example you say that "it is right to reduce fishing" and base the remaining arguments upon that judgement call. Without seemingly recognizing that this is a judgement call rather than a truth. Any time we discuss right and wrong we are making an assessment based upon a belief system. According to what standard has that judgement been made? This is nearly always a question that can be profitably asked to determine the best way to achieve consensus regarding any point of contention. Yet none of this necessarily deals with truth or even fact. Truth by its very nature does not require consensus to remain true. In fact, it remains true even if the consensus disagrees. Commonly held beliefs are not by definition truths, they are exactly what they are described as. Beliefs that are frequently maintained by a population. It was at one time a commonly held belief in western europe that a murder of crows flying past indicated that a battle was immanent and unavoidable.i
@@ElenaAideen Let me re-phrase, there may be a singular truth, but you and I will never know it because it's impossible to know for sure that we have all the information and facts necessary to say with total certainty that this or that is the truth. Sometimes you can look things up, like for example if we wanted to know if the whole Gamestop thing was legal or not, what is the truth, is it legal or isn't it? But as soon as you look up the law you will probably find people that interpret the law differently, and even if it goes to court and a judge makes a ruling on it, you will still find lawyers who will disagree and challenge that ruling. If you see a blue car on your way to work, you might think this is an irrevocable truth, but is it? Can you trust your eyes, your brain, your memory, someone else may have seen something different. That is why the truth, as we understand it, is subjective, but yes, you might say that underneath it all there is a concrete truth, like if someone had video of the event that would help support that truth, but then someone could say the video was edited. So when someone says this or that is the truth, is it really? The best we can do is use trusted sources and our own logic to decide how probable is a particular truth.
@@tidbit1877 so essentially you're saying that because anything can have a straw-man argument thrown at it that it is impossible to determine and evaluate what the truth actually is? (Which by the way is a straw man argument in itself.)
@@ElenaAideen Wrong on both counts, that is not a straw-man argument, it is a fact that the law can be interpreted in different ways, it is also a fact that your brain sometimes tells you that you saw one thing when in fact another thing happened. Look up the black and blue dress, or is it the white and gold dress, you tell me what the "truth is" since you seem to have god-like powers and know things that rest of us don't. It doesn't matter if there is an underlying truth if no one knows for certain what it is.
I dont like the way you said "thats the emotional way to look at it" to demeen this, when the rich bankers make you lose your house house its emotional, when your defiance means you can afford life saving surgery thats emotional theres no objectivity here when the current system of power destroys lives
I don't think he meant it to be demeaning, just that when talking about legality you should be careful to separate the emotional arguments from the legal ones since they apply to two different contexts.
Shorts explained: people want to buy stock, they make a deal with a price, let’s say 100 and a certain date they want to have it. The company they make this deal with get’s 100 and think the price will drop so they wait until the price of the stock drops and buy it for that price and give it to the person they made a deal with and then they have got profit. But if the price increases they lose money
a small clarification for some. essentially, they sell stocks now and buy them in the future. that means they sell for the price they are now, and buy for the price they are then. so if the price goes up they bought for a higher price than they sold for. thats what happened when reddit users bought shit tons of GME stocks
@@cwispygiraffe What bothers me the most is that this strategy basically screws somebody over regardless, and we look at it like it's normal.
A better explanation would be something like: imagine you go to an apple seller, and you predict that the price of apples is gonna go down by half. Say they're $1 per apple right now, so you borrow one apple with the promise of returning it later. You go and immediately sell that apple to someone else for $1, before the price drops, and then you wait. The price goes down to $0.50 per apple, you buy two apples with the $1 you now have, you return one to the original seller as promised, and now you have an extra apple to do whatever with. You just made $0.50. Alternatively, however, your prediction could be wrong, and the price actually goes *up* instead of down, to $1.50 per apple. You will still have to return the apple to the original seller, so now you have no spare apples, and you're $0.50 dollars down. You have lost $0.50.
@@gavindonnelly5885 No more than buying low and selling high. Some one always loses money in order for some one else to gain, but in the context of the stock market this is considered acceptable because ideally all the stocks are going up over time, so it's just a matter of time before a share rises in value. Those who are smart and can out think the others get to get rich quickly; well those who make bad trades lose money. Honestly, I'm not sure if the stock exchanges have any real value today, they used to, but not so much anymore as it's almost impossible to get money for a business idea out of the markets now. But I look at it like a casino for the wealthy, if they want to place bets then let them, if you don't want to get hurt by the stock market then just don't invest, put money into your house instead.
ua-cam.com/video/m4Im5vWMglQ/v-deo.html
I think this video explains shorts the best way possible
Loving these videos, it's nice to hear someone other than my like-minded friends opinion
Its nice because he is incredibly unbiased
I'm investing at least $150 into amc, although it's not a lot, I could make a lot of money.
Also, it's really fun seeing people ban together and change something all at once. I thought about that when I first got into the market, "can enough people, if decided, just by into one stock and make a lot of money?" And it was answered.
To be honest, I find this situation pretty funny. Capitalism in it’s purest form
Capitalism in its purest form arguably would be just fascism.
@@kx7500 no mate that corporatism people think we live in a capatilist world when its really a corporate one
@@sneak2023 corporatism is LITERALLY capitalism fucking look it up.
Calm down mate
@@kx7500 First, calm down please. Second, not really. Pure capitalism would mean that no one *can* make any rules, where as corporatism is when only corporations can make the rules. Obviously, because pure capitalism would require everyone to respect the fact that no one can make rules, it's an impossible utopia, much like any extreme ideology, and so would inevitably lead to corpoatism.
|-O-| I knew basically nothing about this. Xisuma is amazing at covering topics more objectively than most. Seems like he would do a great job in any conversational topics he is interested in. Maybe a full length podcast?
YES
His streams basically are podcasts with Minecraft gameplay in the background.
@@peanutbutter6720 I know
An actual explanation of short selling:
I borrow shares from someone (in the multiples of 1000). I then sell these shares. I hope that the cost of the shares decreases, let's say from $25 a share to $3, I then buy the shares back at the discounted rate. I return the shares to the lender and I pocket the difference, in this case $22 per share I shorted.
While I am borrowing the shares, I must pay interest on the shares borrowed. If the share starts to increase in price, the person who lent me the shares will either ask for them back or increase the interest rate making it more costly for me to keep shorting the stock.
When I want to exit out of my short position I must buy back the stocks. This is what those buying GameStop are betting on, that the price will be high enough for long enough that the shortsellers will be forced to buy back the stock at ridiculous rates, trickle down economics at play if you will 😉
Love these videos, I listen to them during mealtimes
Watching this video a year afterwards, and let me tell you, the fight is DEFINITELY still on. So much more information has been brought to light behind this.
Honestly it’s more fun just to watch the grass go away in these videos 😂. So satisfying!
Short Selling: Imagine your friend goes and buys a dress for $100. You ask if you can borrow that dress and say you'll give it back later. Your friend gives it to you and you immediately go and sell it for $100. Now when it's time for you to give it back, the price of the dress has gone down. You buy the dress for $50, and you give it back to your friend, but you keep the other $50.
But if you do that and the price goes up instead of down, you have to buy the dress for
@Isaac Chensince it's a stock you just buy an identical copy from soneone else to give back to ur friend
and if you dont give it back to ur friend thats like not paying back a loan (i think)
X this video is not the proper one to conversate about the topic on but I've watched your video on suicide and self harm and I want to say thank you because while the thoughts have long since passed the video has helped me answer a lot of the questions about myself and has let me close a dark chapter in my life, from the bottom of my heart... thank you.
My wife said she would like a bike a while back, I get money and go to look at some but the store was all out because of Covid-19. She wanted a Switch so we look online and they are all out because of Covid-19. We didn't want to look at bikes or get a Switch because of covid, but apparently everyone else did... Your stock experience reminds me of that.
What Robinhood did of restricting buys but not sells falls under the definition of market manipulation as it resulted in stop losses being triggered as a result
Hey X, love these videos of you talking about your opinion, specially because we have so different views.
TLDR: "I'm not an expert."
"It's about the principle!"
These videos are really nice, i watched the stream life but listening to it again gives you new information!
15:00 I recommend you invest in hydrogen batteries. Really interesting stuff to look into.
insider training explained: meaning if you are a stock broker and want to incrase chances of getting profit , you can have a man from the company you want to invest in and give you confidentional(not public ) information which effects stock .
I had no idea what was going on with the game stop thing, so thanks for explaining it. Your talk videos are so good at informing me of current events and your words are so inspiring. 😌
Just gonna explain a couple of missconceptions here.
1. This is NOT a fight against capitalism, nor is it a fight against rich people nor big companies.
There is a very common missconception about this that its against either capitalism, rich people or companies.
Its easy to belive that because many political people has backed the buy GME thing.
The whole point of this is actually a lot simpler.
A guy on reddit have been investing in gamestop since 2019 because he thought it was extremly undervalued(wich it was). The hedge founds(in this case it was for the most part melvin but there were others to but i will just refer to them as hedge founds) basically just wanted it to die. There wwre many underlaying reasons for that but mainly because gamestop is a dying buisnes.
So what the hedgefounds did was shorting game stop. But they didnt just short it, they did sometjkng called nakeed shorting wichmeans that they shorted over 100% of the stocks.(that is ilegal)(they shorted over 140% of the stocks)
If it wasnt for the WDB reddit gamestop would have died just like for wxample toys r us died.
So this guy on reddit points that out and tells everyone a soulution.
If everyone buy GME and hold the hedge founds will be forced to buy all the stocks back but since the poeple who own the stock dosent want to sell them the price will skyrocket creating a "short squeze"
Then everyone on WSB can cash out and make money.
That was the plan and that was the reason behind it.
To use the hedgefounds shorting position to take their money. because they wanted GME to die and end thousunds of peoples jobs and to make thousunds of peoples GMe investments worthless.
2. No the squeze hasnt happend yet and the hedge founds havent ended their short positions. Even tho maney mainstream medias tryes to trick people into selling(cough CNNC cough) becaus etheir nacked by the hedge founds.
Many on WSB think it will reach above 1000$ this week.
Dont spend more money on GME then you are fine with losing. It isnt a safe investment. Its a extremly risky one and if youre not familiar with the stock market you should buy.
Well explain lad
Disclamier: Dont watch ANY main stream media when it comes ro this subject.
Dont watch CNN, CNBC, FOX, ABC etc.
They all want to downplay it because they are getting backed by the hedge founds.
Maybe not all but its safest to just stay away from them all.
If you want a good explanation search up Andrei Jikh on youtu e and watch his video about it.(Dont even read his comment section tho they are all full of scammers)
I think the reason has to do with the people commonly being seen as overly excited with what was done are heavily political and/or have a hatred towards rich people, however I may ponder what would've happened if it wasn't just gamestop I mean these people have the will and some now have the means so what is to prevent them from doing it again on a much bigger scale?
@@hejhej5833 Ye I know. I don't think even X understood why are people screwing over hedge fund. Cuz it was never about emotions. It was about people losing jobs because of scumbags that are already full to the brim with money. I don't support whole "Eat the rich", but they need to learn not to #@&$ with people, especially in situations like this where most are always at risk of loosing jobs.
ty mate, made it a lot easier for a barbarian foreigner who have no idea of the whole situation
I missed these videos :)
i think its funny how i find out about all of these news by your videos. i am like not into this stuff but i find it very interesting to hear about it.
If all big companys started to sell a product in a riddiculous price, everyone would be mad.
As for buying index funds, there exists SRI indexes (socially Responsible Investment indexes), that invest in things like green energy, and avoids things like fossil fuels, if that’s of any interest to ya’ll. they still invest in a very large amount of things, including things like Microsoft and Apple
loving the #stonks
Certain very specific financial manipulations are "technically legal" under very specific circumstances because certain politicians were bribed to make it that way or because the law just has not caught on - or caught up - to what is being done and no laws actually cover it yet.
A good example of insider trading would be for for example the ceo of a company shorting a stock and knowing that they are going to be making a decision in a few days that will crash the stock.
"Shorting" is when Another Hermit pays Xisuma say, 10 diamonds per one box of stone in the morning, and you two agree the product be delivered by the end of the day. During the day, instead of going to mine the box of stone, you realise the Barge is selling stone at 6 diamonds per box. So you buy a box from the Barge and gives to the Hermit that ordered the stone, keeping the 40% difference for yourself, without actively producing new products.
If HermitCraft had a central brokerage system, and you had confidence in the Barge always selling @ 6 diamonds per box, you can go to the system and announce you will take every deal from Hermits willing to pay 10D per box, products delivered at the end of the day; the system then collects the payment on your behaviour, giving each customer a "right to collect" from Xisuma, (diamonds paid / 10) boxes at the end of the day. Say if the demand was so huge that the Barge ran out, or the Barge somehow got the information and wish to screw Xisuma over, or Grian simply decided to raise the price to 11D per box, you would (theoretically) still need to pay out of pocket for all those boxes of stone and give them to whoever gave you 10D per box in the morning. This is why it's a "bet" and possible to lose big on shorting.
Now say if there's something fishy going on with X and Grian, and Grian halts all sales from the Barge, while X goes around making outrageous high price deals with other Hermits, only for Grian to restock and flood the market later at a super low price, this would be insider trading. You are trading in the market as a normal transaction/legal transaction, yet X and Grian have an unfair advantage due to exclusive information.
However if Grian announced some 72-hour excavation steam on Twitter, and X made the brilliant prediction that Grian would obviously sell the stone at the Brage at a low price, and goes on to make those outrageous deals in advance, this is not insider trading since the information was publicly available, and it's their fault to not be info-savvy and keeping up with every nooks and cranny of the globe.
Things get "grey" (get it becuz of stones) if X has asked Grian in private if he's gonna collect the stone, if he needed the stone for a build, or if he has already agreed to give someone else the stone. The situation may be ruled illegal or legal, based on the exact conversation, if the two in the conversation has the power to make market decisions, and other variables based on the judge making the ruling and local implications of those laws.
Now what I have described is the shorting of futures, it gets a little bit more nuanced in stock shorting, as in stock you don't exactly make a promise to exchange any physical goods, the idea of "betting on the value of a single share in a company" itself is gamble-y as is, and the stock market as its own rules about when the stock shorted must exchange hands, how much deposit/collateral shorting requires, etc. And because you are trading for a company rather than a single product, which you may find a replacement from other sellers, longs/shorts of a company large enough creates a ripple effect on its products, its consumers, its investors and in the end, ordinary people. This is the price an economy pays for having a "free market", where the financial institutions play the vital role of making commerce/funds move around, and make the people with correct info and good predictions to lead the market. It speeds up booms and devastates the busts, so to speak, and it also give the large firms that have the algorithm, the computing power and the funds to collect and analyse signals from every corner of the world, an advantage, to the average investor that is only trading based on Google news.
Great video listening to it even after its all blown over, im 14 but managed to make 400% profit so I dont think putting money into was throwing it away unless you intended to hold on to the stock for some time
From what I gather, someone noticed that shorting GameStop stock resulted in there being much more stock in circulation than actually exists. Which meant that the hedge fund people left themselves in a position where they have to buy back stock no matter what price it is. So he told WallStreetBets and they went to town.
I don't know if the hedge fund(s) were selling stock they haven't borrowed yet or reselling their borrowed stock twice, but the vibe I'm getting is that they took a risk by fudging numbers and are now liable for it.
I'm only concerned for the inexperienced bystanders risking money they can't afford to lose in order to chase the golden goose. People who aren't savvy enough to pull out in time.
Easier to invest in a bag of popcorn.
It's a very healthy attitude to look for different opinions, respect them and try to understand them🙂. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the norm anymore. Especially on the internet.
Insider Trading is basically using information that isn't publicly available. An example is if you work for Nintendo and you know Zelda Breath of the Wild 2 will be announced March 30th you can't buy up a bunch of Nintendo Stocks until the game is publicly announced.
Know them? I own them!! We must make them pay!!!!!!
I'm very much on the fence about this whole GameStop event. Preferably, the market price of a stock should be determined by what people are willing to pay for the shares based on the value of the underlying company, as those shares are a share of ownership of the company. With the wallstreetbets they don't seem to be buying on any valuation of the actual company, but rather on trying to affect other people in the market, in this case hedge funds. One of the issues with the crisis of 2008 was that some securities, like bundled mortgage derivatives, were increasingly disassociated with the assets that were supposed to be underlying those securities. I'm worried that this and any future actions like it will make something similar happen with stocks, which would make the markets more unstable. And in contrast to 2008, it will be with stocks which many more people are invested in, rather than the more obscure security types that are primarily held by financial institutions.
What the reddit guys did is collution or not? Collution is ilegal I think.
First definition of collition I found: Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium.
How did you make Hermitcraft? (As in how did you make a server that you as the host didn't need to be on for other people to play on it, and not having them be on the same wifi as you? I really want to play with my friends on a Java SMP but I can't find a way to do it!
Xisuma you should look into the smp 500 it is a stock which owns a small portion of some of the top 500 companies in the stock market and has been going up consistently for decades
The power of decentralized and distributed information is showing the cracks in the system. The ancap world is inevitable.
No step on snek!
You are a wise man, love this channel (:
Damn X, you're bringing us back to a rational thinking
even if you fully know about something or not
One of my favorite parts about X is how anti-mob-mentality he is.
Yaaays xisuma says is back!
Xisuma, congrats you have one Australian viewer
Failure doesn't mean the game is over, it means try again with experience 💥💥💥
Very true
Never underestimate a bunch of random people on the internet!
Of All the HERMITCRAFTERS Xisuma is the only one who would talk about this : | yea...
Awesome
It is illegal. They didn't shut down their service, or have a problem. They stopped people from doing transactions in 1 (actually, there were a few more, one being Nokia) stock and even sold some on behalf of the users. That is illegal.
Great video x-i-sumavoid
It’s not for the sake of messing w them, hedge funds are bad for the companies that are affected and it hurts the economy
I think the real losers here are the gamestop employes (along witht he employies of all the other companies in this), because the stock has gone up artificially, so now everyone will sell, the company will go bankrupt, and all these people, the real poor people, not just your average joe, the people who already strugle to feed their families, just working behind the counter at gamestop, will lose their jobs, and these huge corrperations will survive losing a few billion dollars, they will recover, and the people who will be hurt the most at the end will be these workers, and i think thats very sad that people are "fighting for justice" and whatnot, but in reality, the people who need money the most are the ones getting hurt
Robinhood users accepted the terms of service which states that robinhood can shut off access whenever the markets have vast changes.
To the person in chat that said they "just print money" I just wanted to point out that that is NOT true. There are complex and rational reasons for, and mathematical equations, that are used to determine the amount of money that is needed in the USA. This money is not "just printed", it is calculated so that there is no deflation and only minor inflation; and even quantitive easing is done with great care and consideration for the overall effects on the US economy. Also, the Fed does NOT buy American debt, the American people do, and also foreign governments. China only owns 1 trillion of the US debt; and 70% of the debt is owned by small investors in the USA.
Just print out more money
@@strongfork Why?
👍
I don't know about buying stocks to mess with hedge funds... I just love the stock.
If you want good stocks to invest in, weed stocks are a good one to invest in.
Regulation probably won't happen yet.
At the moment there is too much focus on what the POTUS is doing, since he is newly in office.
Financial institutions can be patient though.
Comment section correct me im wrong so there is a lot of rich investor and they bet on shorts so they bet that game stop will fail and they have to returned the shorts at a certain date if i buy shorts for 10$ and when the date expired the shorts is now 2$ so i get a profit of 8$ ok so this millionares is taking a huge risk because you can lose basicly limitless amount but at the end of 2020 the stock price increase to 140% so this millioners lose a lot of money and people on internet get alot of money that's what im getting from just watching and comment i don't like the idea of shortings stock
X, if you're interested in a less emotional analysis of what's going on you should have a listen at Destiny's take. In a nutshell, he believes nothing wrong was done (morally and legally - according to what's know as of today, investigations might change this in the future), that, in the end, other hedge funds are the ones really benefiting from the situation and that, while the regular people that invested early may have made a nice profit, all of the ones that decided to invest late, and may have been misdirected into doing so, are screwed when the stock inevitably goes down.
In any case, much like you, I don't know enough about any of this to know what's actually going on, so don't take anything I've referenced as the absolute truth - this was just the more complete analysis I've come across, that really took into consideration all sides of the issue :/
There are things that were illegal in this situation. Like the robinhood app selling stocks of people without their consent. They put up a notification that your stocks were sold at lower-end price.
@@NaughtyNina1240 That's certainly possible, but as far as I can tell those are essentially allegations at this point. Robinhood is denying it too, whatever that's worth, so I guess without a thorough investigation there's not much we can be certain of. I wasn't able to find any lawsuits filed for this reason either, but it may be too early for that, at least right now.
www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22254857/robinhood-gamestop-amc-shares-sold-surprised-users
The losers are the businesses and little guys
why is X louder on xisumasays?
Because it comes from twitch
@@owendriscoll3440 still
@Mrchessyesy4444 oh mk ty
I'm all for screwing over scammy hedge funds, but Investing like this is like riding a seesaw. Either you're going to jump off, or the other guy is, and one of you is going to end up taking a fall. In situations like this, the other guy might not even realize he's riding the seesaw until he hits the ground. Besides, you never fully know the repercussions of messing with a company's stock value, although to be fair, the scammy investors are possibly already trying to ensure a stock will fail so that their shorts will pay off, so bounding it back up a bit might be a good thing. Who knows. I still easily take the side of Joe Average in this situation, but like with nearly everything, it's not black and white.
Interestingly, Karl Marx actually did a pretty similar thing back in the day and made the equivalent of tens of thousands of pounds
Hedgefunds don't have control of pensions
he said kmowledge lol
Don’t know if Xizuma will read this, but I recommend not investing directly in solar. It’s a better long-term choice to invest in the materials that’re used in them.
For example, in 2020, you could have invested in companies like Amazon or the food delivery service of your choice. Or, you could invest in rubber, which is far cheaper (meaning you can buy more of it) and is required for all of those services, and more, to function at all. Almost every business today needs tires to move their goods. A particular food delivery service may be obsolete in 5 years, but rubber? Doubtful.
I would do some research into what goes into solar panels and start eyeing those places for investment. One place I’ve jumped on these days is salt, since every vaccine requires a saline solution and the world needs billions of them.
Obligatory I’m not a financial guru statement.
Big brain.
Ooooh, I don't get it. Not like anyone asked me to say I'm stupid anyway.
The problem with that logic is that billions of people have had to stay home during the pandemic and therefore they haven't needed new tires on their vehicles, plus all the other things that are made with rubber have probably sold way less because of the pandemic, so rubber probably went down in value over 2020, and will continue to go down over 2021, after which it might go up again, depending on production levels.
Yeahhhhh 1000th like whooooo
First and I have screenshot to prove
Dude your third, you just sort by newest first and go to the bottom.
Your late by 2 minutes
Near the beginning, everyone is first until you refresh the page
Well done that one hell of an achievement 👏...that no one else really cares about.
Gotta comment on something I've heard you say repeatedly in multiple videos that is slightly disturbing. Something I think you could think carefully about.
You have said quite a few times in various ways that the truth and/or facts are subjective. By definition this is impossible. If a supposed fact is no longer true when observed from a different perspective it cannot be a fact. This can very easily make, as you have said, the truth an elusive thing. When arguments from all sides of a debate or discussion are challenged and evaluated critically very often it might seem that there is no truth to be found at all. Sometimes this is the actual case and the entire debate is the result of differing belief systems colliding. Other times however, due to our own belief system we might be unwilling to accept the truth as valid. Recognizing and addressing these difficult truths is essential to both individual and societal growth.
Stepping back and evaluating whether a thing is a fact or a construct derived from one's belief system and world view is a critical skill which it seems the vast majority are woefully lacking. Frankly most people are completely uninterested in challenging their belief systems because it tends to force them to evolve their beliefs in ways that are often uncomfortable.
So I challenge you to stop and reassess things whenever you arrive at a conclusion that says "the truth is a variable".
That is true for things that are concrete in nature; but in economic theory and in politics there are often competing beliefs; if we could say unequivocally that one political parties platform was better than the other party then we wouldn't fight so much, but sometimes humanity has no unanimously accepted truth, therefore we end up with multiple truths. Also, just because something is right, like reducing fishing for example will allow fish populations to be replenished; that may be true, but if you are the fisherman who is now out of a job then you might hate a law that reduces fishing. The truth here is objective, but viewed from a different perspective we get a different outcome. To the fisherman it is still true that reduced fishing is a good thing, but it is also true that such a law becomes a bad thing for that person. It's important to understand that some truths are objective, while others are subjective, and still others are unknown or lack consensus.
@@tidbit1877 the fact that you are referring to economic *THEORY* and *BELIEFS* already explicitly acknowledges that we are dealing with assumptions and opinions rather than truths or facts. That's what a theory is after all; and beliefs are even more fluid as they are defined solely by the individual in their own mind.
In your example you say that "it is right to reduce fishing" and base the remaining arguments upon that judgement call. Without seemingly recognizing that this is a judgement call rather than a truth. Any time we discuss right and wrong we are making an assessment based upon a belief system. According to what standard has that judgement been made? This is nearly always a question that can be profitably asked to determine the best way to achieve consensus regarding any point of contention. Yet none of this necessarily deals with truth or even fact.
Truth by its very nature does not require consensus to remain true. In fact, it remains true even if the consensus disagrees. Commonly held beliefs are not by definition truths, they are exactly what they are described as. Beliefs that are frequently maintained by a population. It was at one time a commonly held belief in western europe that a murder of crows flying past indicated that a battle was immanent and unavoidable.i
@@ElenaAideen Let me re-phrase, there may be a singular truth, but you and I will never know it because it's impossible to know for sure that we have all the information and facts necessary to say with total certainty that this or that is the truth. Sometimes you can look things up, like for example if we wanted to know if the whole Gamestop thing was legal or not, what is the truth, is it legal or isn't it? But as soon as you look up the law you will probably find people that interpret the law differently, and even if it goes to court and a judge makes a ruling on it, you will still find lawyers who will disagree and challenge that ruling.
If you see a blue car on your way to work, you might think this is an irrevocable truth, but is it? Can you trust your eyes, your brain, your memory, someone else may have seen something different. That is why the truth, as we understand it, is subjective, but yes, you might say that underneath it all there is a concrete truth, like if someone had video of the event that would help support that truth, but then someone could say the video was edited. So when someone says this or that is the truth, is it really? The best we can do is use trusted sources and our own logic to decide how probable is a particular truth.
@@tidbit1877 so essentially you're saying that because anything can have a straw-man argument thrown at it that it is impossible to determine and evaluate what the truth actually is? (Which by the way is a straw man argument in itself.)
@@ElenaAideen Wrong on both counts, that is not a straw-man argument, it is a fact that the law can be interpreted in different ways, it is also a fact that your brain sometimes tells you that you saw one thing when in fact another thing happened. Look up the black and blue dress, or is it the white and gold dress, you tell me what the "truth is" since you seem to have god-like powers and know things that rest of us don't. It doesn't matter if there is an underlying truth if no one knows for certain what it is.
Buy gold it's stable
me and the bois on reddit
Waaaaiiiiitt..... is this linked to the thing that MrBeast bought everything in a GameStop????!!
I dont like the way you said "thats the emotional way to look at it" to demeen this, when the rich bankers make you lose your house house its emotional, when your defiance means you can afford life saving surgery thats emotional theres no objectivity here when the current system of power destroys lives
I don't think he meant it to be demeaning, just that when talking about legality you should be careful to separate the emotional arguments from the legal ones since they apply to two different contexts.
TO THE MOON BABY 🚀 🚀