The stage we see is the stage that is presented by all kinds of media. This time (apparently) it is not about slapping the media (alas). The stage is rather large and has a few corners that we consider and there is a lot to be considered off.
The first part of the thought had been out within me for a while, I made more than one mention in the past, but not in relationship to Gamestop, I did made them in consideration to Nintendo. There is an active game that implies a relationship between hedge fund managers, a share of analysts and short selling. We accept the words by Larry Beinhart who gives us “it does not mean we are entering a new age where the power of Wall Street will be truly challenged”, yet the short selling remains an issue. The larger stage was (in a previous stage) where Nintendo would not make the ‘expected’ revenue, yet they were smashing it again and again, quarter after quarter, the short selling stage was set and it happened over the back of Nintendo, now we see that they are till breaking records. So when we see “A few of the little guys – with lots of time on their hands and access to online trading tools – told lots of little guys that if they all bet on GameStop by buying shares, the price would go up. That would force the short-sellers – who thought they had fixed the race – to also buy in order to cover their bets before the prices went even higher. This indeed pushed the prices higher. That was exciting and profitable and more people heard about it and jumped in”, yet this stage where some step in and block the short selling game, which in some views is not some form of gambling, but a setting to ‘rig’ the playing field is now under fire through social media, and the hatred that the amateur has towards hedge funds will not stop any day soon. As such the article (at https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/31/the-gamestop-affair-was-not-about-class-resentment-or-revenge) does not open a door but to some extent a gaping wound, and there is every chance that it will get worse.
Here too is the stage where I am part of the problem, a lot of us are, because we see short selling not as an art, but an emotional blemish on those who do perform we put emotion in the stage in stead of taking it out. I know that I am not exempt from that stage, yet I am aware that I am in this stage, for me Nintendo was the trigger, the attack on those who do perform and there is the problem. We are what we feel and I feel Nintendo did an amazing job (making Microsoft their bitch for one), and it is that sentiment that is basically part of the problem. The stage is not merely the hedge fund, it is the analyst who uses THEIR algorithm to set the stage and it is a two step stage that me, myself and I as well as plenty of others do not trust. You see, I never trusted the Nintendo dip of March 16th 2020, they were breaking records, they smashed past Microsoft and their online stores were raking in the cash, one could ague that rakes were designed, just to gather the Nintendo money, they were doing that well and now, nearly 9 months later they nearly doubled their value and well over 300% from 2017 when the Nintendo Switch was launched, and they have currently sold almost 50% more systems than the lifetime sales of the Xbox One, which had 5 additional years. In this I see pride, and a little of vindication on the lack of intelligence (read: stupidity) by Microsoft, and weirdly enough there aren’t that many short selling games involving Microsoft, as such the ‘game’ involving Gamestop shows a different game. A game that is speculatively set up against the smaller players that do not have the global support that a player like Microsoft seemingly has, but that could be my emotion speaking and I am upfront about it, because I am trying to properly inform you (well at least to some degree).
And it is here where we look at the article by the Economist (at https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/11/10/a-companys-battle-to-show-it-was-a-victim-of-abusive-short-selling) 5 years ago. There we might notice the headline ‘A company’s battle to show it was a victim of abusive short-selling’, yet who noticed “the shorter can buy new shares more cheaply to settle with the lender, and pocket the difference, less a small amount of interest. Those who make their living this way do markets a big service, by seeking out and drawing attention to mispriced shares”, so whilst we consider ‘drawing attention to mispriced shares’, is anyone taking a larger look at the analyst and their arbitrary designed profile syntaxes? Is the stage ‘who is likely to loose value’ or is it ‘who is more susceptible to a short sell attack?’ And who has the goods that could prove either? We see that the short sell attack is thwarted on Gamestop, but gamers are a dedicated emotional bunch under the best of conditions, other players might not be that lucky. So who is looking at the Business Intelligence analyst?