Comments by "Piccalilli Pit" (@piccalillipit9211) on "CEO of WeBull services firm explains to benzinga what's going on with Gamestop" video.

I just commented SO YOU ARE TELLING ME that this whole house of cards is SO unstable that a lot of trading in just 1 $24 billion company can bring it ALL crashing down..,.?????? MAYBE the whole thing should be stopped then??
10
@TremereTT - So the sales they allow - who is being those??? For every sale there has to be a buyer - and its 100% collateral for the buying half of THAT sale... But they can cover that side OK. Only not YOUR side??? And you are NOT shorting, you are NOT a hedge fund, but they can not cover your side of it - only the sale side. How does that work??? They can cover ALL the buying of the small guys selling but NONE of the small guys bying. There is to say the least - a massive logical inconsistency here - if the shares could not be traded - YES, this would make sense. But to only allow selling - yeah, sales don't happen without a buyer - and that buyer was LIKELY to be a hedge fund shorting...
7
@TremereTT LET ME SUMMARISE THIS to buy a share your BROKER needed to put up 100% capital for the buy, to SELL they need to put up 0% The BIG guy's brokers HAD THE MONEY to cover the BUY's, but the SMALL guy's brokers DID NOT have the money - so YOU could only sell but the BIG guys could buy AND sell... Boo Hoo small guy - this just happened to massively BENEFIT the big guys and the hedge funds - cos OF COURSE... Am I getting this correct? The bit I was not initially getting was that some brokers had the collateral and could cover the buy's. That was the bit of the jigsaw I was missing. SO - its not actively screwing the little guy over, its passively screwing the little guy over and helping out the Hedge Funds purely as a nice happenstance - cos that is the way the world is structured...
6
@TremereTT - SO - the question now is, did DTC, the people who set the requirement for 100% security, just happen to do this - OR was this done cos they knew the effect it would have and it was helping out the large brokers and the Hedge Funds. Cos it seems to have had the EXACT effect of screwing over the little plebs and helping out Citadel...
5
@TremereTT - BTW - thank you for the very clear explanation - it is appreciated.
1
LET ME SUMMARISE THIS to buy a share your BROKER needed to put up 100% capital for the buy, to SELL they need to put up 0% The BIG guy's brokers HAD THE MONEY to cover the BUY's, but the SMALL guy's brokers DID NOT have the money - so YOU could only sell but the BIG guys could buy AND sell... Boo Hoo small guy - this just happened to massively BENEFIT the big guys and the hedge funds - cos OF COURSE...
1
NO THE MARKET CAP IS IRRELEVANT its 100% security PER share transaction - not total shares. Lets say there are 100 shares, they maybe be TRADED 1000 times in that day - that's 100,000 X the value of the shares in security. So that $300 Billion would become $300 TRILLION in required security...
1
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME that this whole house of cards is SO unstable that a lot of trading in just 1 $24 billion company can bring it ALL crashing down..,.?????? MAYBE the whole thing should be stopped then??
1
SO HOW DID THEY COVER ALL THE SHARES PEOPLE SOLD..??? cos someone had to BUY those shares - they dod not evaporate - ever SALE has a BUYER... So this is total BS
1
HOW COME every CEO has a different reason they stopped the BUYING only - you expect me to believe that you all came to the same conclusion for DIFFERENT reasons At the exact same time, and you are all part-owned by the Hedge Fund - yeah...
1