Talk:GameStop short squeeze

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

AMC ticker symbol (AMC) not ( AMCX) 2601:14A:4500:45E0:35C0:A7E7:1B38:A7E1 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Two different companies are being dicussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

No short positions were covered in January the price was due to simple buying pressure. Why would you lie unless you're paid off? The CC released an article clearly stating that no short positions were covered in January therefore there was not a short squeeze. Your misinforming hundreds of millions of people on purpose. 2600:1008:B024:6A83:4629:1B42:3D52:1EBB (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for Revision

I was reading the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021. This report included information regarding the "short squeeze" of GameStop Corp that happened this year. I read the whole report and found something interesting.

The SEC reported that there was actually no evidence that a short squeeze occurred. In fact, there was also no evidence of a gamma squeeze occurring. I found every single line in the report that states this and listed it below:

1. Alternatively, others contended that unusually high levels of short interest in GME presented the potential for a coordinated “short squeeze.” 2. GameStop had already started to receive attention on Reddit in 2019, including in discussions about short squeezes. That attention grew throughout 2020. 3. Given the high levels of short interest, together with the price movements in GameStop, a natural question is the degree to which these price movements arose from a “short squeeze.” Indeed, some of the meme stock trading was described in news coverage as an act of rebellion against short-selling professional investors who had targeted GameStop and other stocks. 4. While the price of GameStop did eventually fall, one could ask to what extent a short squeeze lay behind its price increase dynamics. 5. Another possible explanation could be a “gamma squeeze,” which occurs when market makers purchase a stock to hedge the risk associated with writing call options on that stock, in turn putting further upward pressure on the underlying stock price. As noted above, though, staff did not find evidence of a gamma squeeze in GME during January 2021. 6. These observations by themselves are not consistent with a gamma squeeze. 7. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.

I am addressing this is because I read the Wikipedia article regarding the "GameStop Short Squeeze" and it appears to be fairly inconsistent with the U.S. SEC official report. There was no evidence of a short squeeze and the price movement was solely from retail buying pressure. I think it needs to be corrected because it gives the false narrative that a short squeeze already happened and that short sellers covered their positions. As far I can tell, we actually do not know if they covered - opening the potential for an actual short squeeze to happen.

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Source: https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomSnatcher (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is this page so wrong

I am not trying to offend anyone, I love the work the people of wikipedia do. But a short squeeze forces the price up by forcing (squeezing) short buyers to buy the stock. But according to the sec report on this event there was no buying back of stocks by short buyers 178.228.130.23 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Are we trying to be corrupt or something?

Why is this written in such a way as to create a narrative that doesn't exist? The squeeze was stopped short and has not yet concluded. This is still an ongoing event, why does the article read like it was written by an underpaid CNBC / Citadel / Motley Fool employee trying to get a shill bonus? Not that I expect anything reflecting integrity from Wikipedia, the moderation here was bought a long time ago... This article is far from neutral, and is pushing a specific narrative. Honestly I'd argue for DELETION until the hedge funds have closed their naked short positions and the actual short squeeze has at least BEGUN. Until then, this is trying to claim an ongoing situation has concluded in a situation where the media (yes, including Wikipedia) can manipulate the public perception of the situation, which could influence how it plays out. I'm assuming that no action will ever be taken against this outright disregard for the law until the public is outraged, and pseudo-articles like these claiming the event was in the past and not in the present only serves to bury the truth. Yes, I'm saying having no article would be better than having these lies literally influence the event the article is supposed to have an unbiased view on. Not a single reference to the subreddits at the center of this or any of what actually transpired outside of the small price movement that occurred and a tweet from AOC. Wikipedia needs to work on this complete lack of integrity, I lost trust in this site years ago, but this one takes the cake. In fact $50 says I find an IP address in the edit history belonging to one of the parties who stands to lose it all on their illegally executed bad bet. If you can't even be bothered to do 10 minutes of research before OKing this nonsense, you have no business editing/moderating Wikipedia, period. 2600:1005:B028:20FA:B9AC:79B1:85DD:567E (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Reddit - there is no place here for your bizarre and easily disproved conspiracy theories. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.29.204 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone from wikipedia actually responded to a readers comment like that? If you work for Wiki, what is your name or what do you go by? 2600:8805:195D:7200:DD3F:8008:6E3B:A0D7 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)