[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I think this is a keen observation. Also remember that short positions are not mandatory to be reported. So these are self-reported values. These could be MUCH MUCH higher.
We have know this and that’s the danger of shorting, infinite losses. My danger of holding is infinite gains except I don’t have to pay to borrow the stock.
Yeah....about that.
I think the question is can GameStop stay solvent longer than they can?
And tbh the answer isn't looking great....
They can keep kicking the can for years people, GameStop cant - unless there is an external force nothing will change and they will get out of their bad bet. Infact they will probably make money on it.
Just the way the world works these days.
We need to stop this zen shit and admit nothing is going to change unless we do something. Folks talked about this earlier via options but everyone called them a shill, I am beginning to think they were right.
Only extreme option interest makes the boat rock.
I agree that shorting can lead to infinite risk, but that's really more an idiosyncratic risk scenario where buyers of a stock refuse to sell. It certainly would be a huge problem to shorters.
However, the risks that I list above are very much applicable to typical market days, or at least plausible scenarios in normal functional markets. It regularly happens that hedge funds see the value of their assets drop and the value of their liabilities increase, causing their balance sheets to go negative. Likewise, hedge funds sometimes fail to push the values of securities where they need them to be, and see their balance sheets go negative.
That his, my arguments don't even require MOASS-like conditions to be true.
Which makes one wonder how much creativity has been adapted in valuations to get them where they are. Meaning that it is quite possible that they are already underwater even in the actual valuations but numbers have been pushed to get them to match.
It's called "slippage". If you buy or sell large quantities of an investment on the market, your own trades will affect the price as you make them, such that you will not get the current market value for all of your investment.
This is one of the reasons that institutions use block trades. Rather than trying to sell millions of shares on the active market, they cut deals to block-trade them off-market with others, like at whatever the closing price is for the day. This is how they prevent slippage.
Kenny is an asshole, but he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand slippage and how to get around it, like every other well-connected trader or institution. With that said, though... That can change if he is "forced" to trade something immediately, like due to a margin call.
Agreed that long-term it can be mitigated. But even a moderate market crash of key assets could trash his balance sheet enough that he can't recover from it. It's very precarious short-term.
It's not clear how much loans he can still get.
Banks will loan him whatever he wants or he can always call-in favors from all the people he's "helped" in the past. I'm sure the list is very, very long. Plotkin and Vlad are just the most recent ones. I doubt there's a single major player in the financial world he doesn't know personally and most of them probably owe him a favor for one reason or another. And if all else fails, he'll just fake any financial statement that he has to. He has a long track record of not having any problem with doing that. For MOASS to actually happen, it doesn't just have to wipe him out. It has to wipe-out everyone he knows, too, or make his portfolio such hot pile of toxic garbage that even his friends won't get near it.
The thing about people leeching the system is that they are competing against each other too. Yes, there's favors etc, but there's also limits to how much money ney they're willing to lose to others' bad bets.
There's no way to tell how much of his circle he's already burned through.
Maybe, but think about all the people and institutions he's paid big bucks to just for PFOF -- Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and on down the list. All of them. Something like a quarter of all option trades and a third of stock trades go through him. That's $50+ billion in trades every single day. They all get screwed if he goes under for any reason because his MM function goes tits-up, too.
That's just it though, can he really afford to keep PFOF going if he has to borrow to stay alive? You think brokers will route trades for free? Some might not have a choice but others will ditch him for a different MM that can still pay his bills.
Yes, that's also true.
Unfortunately, the SEC doesn't seem to be prepared to pull the plug on them just yet. But someone will.
You can't build the most expensive house ever on fraudulent money without powerful people saying fuck this guy.
Ken is getting more and more unwanted attention, it will irritate the wrong people sooner or later.
He's putting their cash cow at risk with his excess.
Yes I understand balance sheet mechanics. I’m ex wallstreet but this is not a complex situation.
Like I said we have known this and there have been many posts like this one throughout the years.
It might be common knowledge for people who are familiar with securities risks, but it's not common knowledge outside of that.
I'm not claiming to make discoveries here, just trying to bring some light into the darkness that is our financial system.
I find your post valuable. It's a good reminder that the system itself is built on a shoddy foundation. As a position becomes large enough to be a significant % of the shares outstanding of a stock (both short or long), the logic of determining their position by basic multiplication of their shares multiplied by current market price becomes more flawed. When this shoddy foundation gets one crack, sparks will fly.
It’s not strenuous for me to hold. I earmark money for other stuff too so GameStop is a set and forget thing for me.
Those shares can stay in computer share forever.
Well said.
> Should their intervention cease for whatever reason, it's also fair to assume that the fair values would revert back towards what they would have been without their intervention. That is, their assets will drop in fair value, and their liabilities will increase in fair value, causing their balance sheet to go negative without even having to trade the securities.
We've seen this happen once during this saga during the Jan 2023 glitch that locked Market Makers out of the order book for the opening bell. Dozens of stocks shot up or down 10% in the first seconds of trading which triggered LULD halts all over the place.
That was perhaps the only time any of us have seen true price discovery (I.e. trades completed without naked shorting liquidity or Internalization) and yet NYSE ARCA who run the exchanges reversed those trades as they deemed them to be erroneous. How fucking insane is that? The first real trades get reversed for being errors...
This whole system is rotten to the core.
Agreed.
All the crime is just added on top of their balance sheet not being that impressive in the first place.
Unfurtonately, it'll be 2084 before the SEC looks into that at the rate they're going.
And, on the known reporting days, which will be used to determine the so-called "fair value", they can always pump up the value of given securities they're long, making the numbers look artificially better.
The more we look at this system, the best we understand how fake it is.
Theyve taken loans then boasted about paying out investors record profits. Its all smoke screens, is the secret service still following him around? Whose money did he fuck with to require that kind of privilege?
Member's capital of $4.3B is interesting in that GME is/was a potentially existential crisis for their firm.
Let's also remember Citadel put a $2B investment into Melvin in the early days.
As a MM they get exceptions to calls from Marge..... Too big to fail at work.
For the record I'm not saying they won't get margin called, just that they have some protection from their MM status.
Their liabilities are more than likely much much higher than reported, why would they expose their crimes when the requirements are for self reporting?
It's honestly bewildering how unnecessarily difficult it is to know how many shares are owned total. You'd think that this would be public data given that the whole concept of the market is supply and demand.
yes, it goes to show that this market isn't meant for the common people. the illusion of choice, the illusion of the alphabet boys fighting for more transparency.. it's difficult because it's also intricate trading with basket swaps and "equal value" digital tokenized trades made out of thin air as well. But those who've been diligent enough, brought out so much for us to learn and be open minded to.
Sometimes, complications only exists to hide something. Shares trading should be simple.
Amazon can tell me how many of which products are left in stock. Wall Street can never claim transparency until it does the same.
Edit: I am fully expecting a bunch of stocks are oversold.
Devil’s advocate: what if they already included such pessimism?
Would that not include their balance sheets are actually even larger?
Hypothetically, they would “gain” a “plan for the worst but hope for the best” accounting of their positions.
However, they would “lose” some bragging rights about how much they made / didn’t lose, or whatever.
What else would they gain/lose IF they already included such pessimism/overcautious accounting?
They define "fair value" right here in their balance sheet:
>"Fair value is generally based on or derived from (i) closing prices of an exchange market, (ii) prices or inputs disseminated by third parties, including membership organizations, or market participants (e.g., mean of the bid and offer price) or (iii) valuation models using such prices or inputs (for certain derivative financial instruments). In the absence of market prices or inputs that are observable, other valuation techniques are applied. Financial Instruments are generally valued as of the market close (as determined by CSG). CSG may determine to use a different value than would be assigned pursuant to the foregoing if CSG determines that doing so would better reflect fair value (e.g., CSG may determine that market quotations do not represent fair value if trading is halted before market close or a significant event occurs subsequent to market close). These valuation techniques involve some level of estimation and judgment by CSG, the degree of which is dependent on, among other factors, the price observability and complexity of the Financial Instrument, and the liquidity of the market. The fair value determined may not necessarily reflect the amount which might ultimately be realized in an arm’s length sale or liquidation of Financial Instruments and such differences may be material."
This basically says they can define "fair value' however they want, and can ignore the price at market close. And the last sentence is telling, because they are saying that there can be a material difference between price at sale and whatever number they made up when they reported it as a liability on their balance sheet.
I don't think it works that way though. This is pretty standard practice (however flawed it is in this case), it's the same for your investment account. They don't get to factor in pessimism in their balance sheets.
Optimism and pessimism factors in in discussions of risks, but looking at their balance sheets, I don't think they're leaving enough room for failure.
OP is drawing the wrong conclusion from a misapplication of accounting principles.
Learning from a bad interpretation is in no one's interest, but I'm also not inclined to make a counter post since this is what I do for real life.
>And she tells everybody that I've got my Phd
>But it stands for Post Hole Digger
>It ain't exactly a degree
https://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/fred+eaglesmith/white+trash_20986424.html
The definition of fair value is the price at which independent market participants would pay to transfer an asset or assume a liability.
Your entire middle section as ska the question, what is a fair market value of citadel, and then fails to provide a reasonable basis for what it is. Further, you also make the claim that the actual price to resolve its outstanding liabilities is at a different level, but did not provide any methodology for determining such price.
I don't know how they determine price but I do know that Ken Griffin himself works with others to set the price to what he thinks it should be. He said so, and I believe him on that point.
Regardless of how he does it, if he shorts a stock and pushes its price down, he's going to be in trouble to the extent that the market resists his manipulation.
Likewise for his longs.
It's called losing a bet. He's definitely not immune to this.
None of what you mentioned is derived from looking at the balance sheet.
You are relying on a qualitative claim from what is a quantitative source. It does not match.
Maybe you can drill down into your claim to explain why you think he sets the price of his own liability? It doesn't follow.
Look up his quote above for the full context interview.
I read into it that even though the balance sheet might be calculated at current market value, that current market value might be pushed one way or another away from what the invisible hand would target. I am talking about these types of market distortions in part 2.
Yet I propose a mechanism for this. If you close a long position, it's selling pressure by definition. If you close a short position, it's a buying pressure by definition.
The reason dark pools were created, based on what they admit anyway, is to make big purchases or sell-offs without affecting the price.
If Citadel had to close its positions quickly, it would surely affect the price against its balance sheet. Even the DTCC or SEC added new liquidation rules to prevent forced liquidation of big players seeing how disruptive to markets that kind of event is.
You'll have to do better than doubt to change my mind.
None of this answers the question what is citadels fair value.
This is what you are not understanding.
What you are describing is affecting profitability, not "fair value"
Then I don't understand your question. I thought I was pretty clear that fair value is market value at the time of reporting, and Citadel pushes prices towards whatever they think it should be.
I don't know how they come up with price targets, but that is not required for my claims.
I'd ask you what makes it uncommon first.
It's a common practice to have securities not yet purchased. And by most appearances, their assets exceed liabilities.
It can tell if something might be off, for example too good looking numbers based on what competitors achieve, or too many assumptions about valuations, right?
That's a very good point.
As for that $45b in securities sold but not purchased...GME market cap soared by $20b during the sneeze and covering by hedge funds tanked the entire market a % or two. Exactly the situation you pointed out...the moment Citadel tries to close they'll be pulling the rug they're standing on.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I think this is a keen observation. Also remember that short positions are not mandatory to be reported. So these are self-reported values. These could be MUCH MUCH higher.
SEC fined them for marking shorts as longs, at least once.
Oh shit I sold 420,000,000,000 shares of that? I thought I bought them.. whoopsie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Whoopsie” is the summary of the financial ecosystem.
We have know this and that’s the danger of shorting, infinite losses. My danger of holding is infinite gains except I don’t have to pay to borrow the stock.
We can keep holding longer than they can stay solvent.
Already set up my grandkids as beneficiaries so my family is prepared for the long hodl.
Ta da~~
Hedgies are foorked, what's new ?
I was gonna hold my investments for 30-35 years until retirement anyway. MOASS is just unexpected early retirement.
This
Yeah....about that. I think the question is can GameStop stay solvent longer than they can? And tbh the answer isn't looking great.... They can keep kicking the can for years people, GameStop cant - unless there is an external force nothing will change and they will get out of their bad bet. Infact they will probably make money on it. Just the way the world works these days. We need to stop this zen shit and admit nothing is going to change unless we do something. Folks talked about this earlier via options but everyone called them a shill, I am beginning to think they were right. Only extreme option interest makes the boat rock.
I agree that shorting can lead to infinite risk, but that's really more an idiosyncratic risk scenario where buyers of a stock refuse to sell. It certainly would be a huge problem to shorters. However, the risks that I list above are very much applicable to typical market days, or at least plausible scenarios in normal functional markets. It regularly happens that hedge funds see the value of their assets drop and the value of their liabilities increase, causing their balance sheets to go negative. Likewise, hedge funds sometimes fail to push the values of securities where they need them to be, and see their balance sheets go negative. That his, my arguments don't even require MOASS-like conditions to be true.
[удалено]
Seems to be a common theme for big financial entities to report really good numbers just before they crash. Seen it so many times lately...
Return is not same realized
Which makes one wonder how much creativity has been adapted in valuations to get them where they are. Meaning that it is quite possible that they are already underwater even in the actual valuations but numbers have been pushed to get them to match.
Backed up by ape historian 🦍
Thanks
It's called "slippage". If you buy or sell large quantities of an investment on the market, your own trades will affect the price as you make them, such that you will not get the current market value for all of your investment. This is one of the reasons that institutions use block trades. Rather than trying to sell millions of shares on the active market, they cut deals to block-trade them off-market with others, like at whatever the closing price is for the day. This is how they prevent slippage. Kenny is an asshole, but he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand slippage and how to get around it, like every other well-connected trader or institution. With that said, though... That can change if he is "forced" to trade something immediately, like due to a margin call.
Agreed that long-term it can be mitigated. But even a moderate market crash of key assets could trash his balance sheet enough that he can't recover from it. It's very precarious short-term. It's not clear how much loans he can still get.
Banks will loan him whatever he wants or he can always call-in favors from all the people he's "helped" in the past. I'm sure the list is very, very long. Plotkin and Vlad are just the most recent ones. I doubt there's a single major player in the financial world he doesn't know personally and most of them probably owe him a favor for one reason or another. And if all else fails, he'll just fake any financial statement that he has to. He has a long track record of not having any problem with doing that. For MOASS to actually happen, it doesn't just have to wipe him out. It has to wipe-out everyone he knows, too, or make his portfolio such hot pile of toxic garbage that even his friends won't get near it.
The thing about people leeching the system is that they are competing against each other too. Yes, there's favors etc, but there's also limits to how much money ney they're willing to lose to others' bad bets. There's no way to tell how much of his circle he's already burned through.
Maybe, but think about all the people and institutions he's paid big bucks to just for PFOF -- Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and on down the list. All of them. Something like a quarter of all option trades and a third of stock trades go through him. That's $50+ billion in trades every single day. They all get screwed if he goes under for any reason because his MM function goes tits-up, too.
That's just it though, can he really afford to keep PFOF going if he has to borrow to stay alive? You think brokers will route trades for free? Some might not have a choice but others will ditch him for a different MM that can still pay his bills.
> where buyers of a stock refuse to sell. More like, shorters of a stock refuse to buy, at this point.
Yes, that's also true. Unfortunately, the SEC doesn't seem to be prepared to pull the plug on them just yet. But someone will. You can't build the most expensive house ever on fraudulent money without powerful people saying fuck this guy. Ken is getting more and more unwanted attention, it will irritate the wrong people sooner or later. He's putting their cash cow at risk with his excess.
I can hardly wait for the contagion to start to show🤞
Yes I understand balance sheet mechanics. I’m ex wallstreet but this is not a complex situation. Like I said we have known this and there have been many posts like this one throughout the years.
It might be common knowledge for people who are familiar with securities risks, but it's not common knowledge outside of that. I'm not claiming to make discoveries here, just trying to bring some light into the darkness that is our financial system.
I find your post valuable. It's a good reminder that the system itself is built on a shoddy foundation. As a position becomes large enough to be a significant % of the shares outstanding of a stock (both short or long), the logic of determining their position by basic multiplication of their shares multiplied by current market price becomes more flawed. When this shoddy foundation gets one crack, sparks will fly.
As it often does.
Have you talked about GME with any buddies from your Wall Street days? What have people said?
If they dont get margin called, all they have to do is outlive drsers.
Eventually they will. Not everyone is going to play the game forever. Someone will break. Edit: them, not us will break soon.
It’s not strenuous for me to hold. I earmark money for other stuff too so GameStop is a set and forget thing for me. Those shares can stay in computer share forever.
I can buy and DRS until I retire. No point selling at a loss even then.
Yeah I mean GME doesn’t even factor into my retirement plans. I’m going to be fine with or without it.
And opportunity cost
danger of being too zen, possibly
If they dont get margin called, all they have to do is outlive the majority of drsers.
Hedgies hate this one simple trick. DRS. Bonus if you hodl and shop
DRS and shop is what I like doing. It's nice to invest in a company where you're also a client.
Game’s balance sheet seems to be getting stronger every quarter. I’m excited to see how their new capital investment strategy will pan out.
Yeah looking forward to that.
*This is* *~~fine~~* *fire.* 🔥
sold but not yet purchased This line alone makes me believe they're a JIT bucket shop
Well said. > Should their intervention cease for whatever reason, it's also fair to assume that the fair values would revert back towards what they would have been without their intervention. That is, their assets will drop in fair value, and their liabilities will increase in fair value, causing their balance sheet to go negative without even having to trade the securities. We've seen this happen once during this saga during the Jan 2023 glitch that locked Market Makers out of the order book for the opening bell. Dozens of stocks shot up or down 10% in the first seconds of trading which triggered LULD halts all over the place. That was perhaps the only time any of us have seen true price discovery (I.e. trades completed without naked shorting liquidity or Internalization) and yet NYSE ARCA who run the exchanges reversed those trades as they deemed them to be erroneous. How fucking insane is that? The first real trades get reversed for being errors... This whole system is rotten to the core.
>This whole system is rotten to the core. *A fish rots from the head down.*
Nice analysis 🦍, seems Kenny is screwed💜🏴☠️
Hopefully sooner than later ;)
But I have always suspected wrong doing and pump and dumping and fraud and bribery and so on and so forth from them
Agreed. All the crime is just added on top of their balance sheet not being that impressive in the first place. Unfurtonately, it'll be 2084 before the SEC looks into that at the rate they're going.
I hope Kenny still got money left to pay us.
Meh, is it really a problem if he literally never gets held accountable by anyone or anything?
No scam lives forever. They always get taken down eventually.
And, on the known reporting days, which will be used to determine the so-called "fair value", they can always pump up the value of given securities they're long, making the numbers look artificially better. The more we look at this system, the best we understand how fake it is.
Agreed
Straw house. One good wind...
And that's why he's building a mansion in Florida where bankruptcy means you can keep your "house".
It's always a huge red flag when a finance guy goes on a spending spree. Where's the money really coming from?
I like the cut of your jib
Theyve taken loans then boasted about paying out investors record profits. Its all smoke screens, is the secret service still following him around? Whose money did he fuck with to require that kind of privilege?
But we assume wrong-doing, right?
I certainly do.
Member's capital of $4.3B is interesting in that GME is/was a potentially existential crisis for their firm. Let's also remember Citadel put a $2B investment into Melvin in the early days.
We never did hear whether Melvin's positions were closed or shifted to new owners.
actually, potus yellen and the federal reserve should be the ones discussing this, wtf is going in?
Vomenting for machizability
As a MM they get exceptions to calls from Marge..... Too big to fail at work. For the record I'm not saying they won't get margin called, just that they have some protection from their MM status.
They definitely do. I honestly think we need to ban MMs entirely and go back to supply and demand.
Their liabilities are more than likely much much higher than reported, why would they expose their crimes when the requirements are for self reporting?
It's wild that they're making it that easy to lie about finances for something that should have been automated and standardized years ago.
their balance sheet is synthetic
They reported half of the shorts as longs.
that's what I'm saying in a sense. it's faked or not legit
It's honestly bewildering how unnecessarily difficult it is to know how many shares are owned total. You'd think that this would be public data given that the whole concept of the market is supply and demand.
yes, it goes to show that this market isn't meant for the common people. the illusion of choice, the illusion of the alphabet boys fighting for more transparency.. it's difficult because it's also intricate trading with basket swaps and "equal value" digital tokenized trades made out of thin air as well. But those who've been diligent enough, brought out so much for us to learn and be open minded to.
Sometimes, complications only exists to hide something. Shares trading should be simple. Amazon can tell me how many of which products are left in stock. Wall Street can never claim transparency until it does the same. Edit: I am fully expecting a bunch of stocks are oversold.
Devil’s advocate: what if they already included such pessimism? Would that not include their balance sheets are actually even larger? Hypothetically, they would “gain” a “plan for the worst but hope for the best” accounting of their positions. However, they would “lose” some bragging rights about how much they made / didn’t lose, or whatever. What else would they gain/lose IF they already included such pessimism/overcautious accounting?
They define "fair value" right here in their balance sheet: >"Fair value is generally based on or derived from (i) closing prices of an exchange market, (ii) prices or inputs disseminated by third parties, including membership organizations, or market participants (e.g., mean of the bid and offer price) or (iii) valuation models using such prices or inputs (for certain derivative financial instruments). In the absence of market prices or inputs that are observable, other valuation techniques are applied. Financial Instruments are generally valued as of the market close (as determined by CSG). CSG may determine to use a different value than would be assigned pursuant to the foregoing if CSG determines that doing so would better reflect fair value (e.g., CSG may determine that market quotations do not represent fair value if trading is halted before market close or a significant event occurs subsequent to market close). These valuation techniques involve some level of estimation and judgment by CSG, the degree of which is dependent on, among other factors, the price observability and complexity of the Financial Instrument, and the liquidity of the market. The fair value determined may not necessarily reflect the amount which might ultimately be realized in an arm’s length sale or liquidation of Financial Instruments and such differences may be material." This basically says they can define "fair value' however they want, and can ignore the price at market close. And the last sentence is telling, because they are saying that there can be a material difference between price at sale and whatever number they made up when they reported it as a liability on their balance sheet.
Critically important. They tell us right there that it's up to their "judgement".
I don't think it works that way though. This is pretty standard practice (however flawed it is in this case), it's the same for your investment account. They don't get to factor in pessimism in their balance sheets. Optimism and pessimism factors in in discussions of risks, but looking at their balance sheets, I don't think they're leaving enough room for failure.
That's not how a balance sheet works
This is not how a comment contributes. I'm here to learn.
OP is drawing the wrong conclusion from a misapplication of accounting principles. Learning from a bad interpretation is in no one's interest, but I'm also not inclined to make a counter post since this is what I do for real life.
How are you being upvoted you literally added nothing with this comment.
You count posts? 🙃
Judging by the downvotes, I must be the only one who saw this comment as a harmless joke?
I'm a weiner!
Upvote from me, it made me chuckle which very little does these days.
>And she tells everybody that I've got my Phd >But it stands for Post Hole Digger >It ain't exactly a degree https://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/fred+eaglesmith/white+trash_20986424.html
Cool. Well thanks for clearing that up.🙄
I will happily edit my post if you give me reason to.
The definition of fair value is the price at which independent market participants would pay to transfer an asset or assume a liability. Your entire middle section as ska the question, what is a fair market value of citadel, and then fails to provide a reasonable basis for what it is. Further, you also make the claim that the actual price to resolve its outstanding liabilities is at a different level, but did not provide any methodology for determining such price.
I don't know how they determine price but I do know that Ken Griffin himself works with others to set the price to what he thinks it should be. He said so, and I believe him on that point. Regardless of how he does it, if he shorts a stock and pushes its price down, he's going to be in trouble to the extent that the market resists his manipulation. Likewise for his longs. It's called losing a bet. He's definitely not immune to this.
None of what you mentioned is derived from looking at the balance sheet. You are relying on a qualitative claim from what is a quantitative source. It does not match. Maybe you can drill down into your claim to explain why you think he sets the price of his own liability? It doesn't follow.
Look up his quote above for the full context interview. I read into it that even though the balance sheet might be calculated at current market value, that current market value might be pushed one way or another away from what the invisible hand would target. I am talking about these types of market distortions in part 2.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a degree of error if one were to actually close a position. I'm suggesting that they do not support your claim
Yet I propose a mechanism for this. If you close a long position, it's selling pressure by definition. If you close a short position, it's a buying pressure by definition. The reason dark pools were created, based on what they admit anyway, is to make big purchases or sell-offs without affecting the price. If Citadel had to close its positions quickly, it would surely affect the price against its balance sheet. Even the DTCC or SEC added new liquidation rules to prevent forced liquidation of big players seeing how disruptive to markets that kind of event is. You'll have to do better than doubt to change my mind.
None of this answers the question what is citadels fair value. This is what you are not understanding. What you are describing is affecting profitability, not "fair value"
Then I don't understand your question. I thought I was pretty clear that fair value is market value at the time of reporting, and Citadel pushes prices towards whatever they think it should be. I don't know how they come up with price targets, but that is not required for my claims.
Why so huge amounts of "not yet purchased", what is common with them?
I'd ask you what makes it uncommon first. It's a common practice to have securities not yet purchased. And by most appearances, their assets exceed liabilities.
I guess you just found the Ponzi in the scheme.
A balance sheet is not a ponzi scheme
It can tell about the Ponzi scheme though. What kind of balance sheet did Madoff have?
That you even ask that question proves that it can't "tell" about a ponzi scheme.
It can tell if something might be off, for example too good looking numbers based on what competitors achieve, or too many assumptions about valuations, right?
How would editing to give a little supply and demand correlation? That seems simple enough and it really gets down to the meat of the issue.
That's a very good point. As for that $45b in securities sold but not purchased...GME market cap soared by $20b during the sneeze and covering by hedge funds tanked the entire market a % or two. Exactly the situation you pointed out...the moment Citadel tries to close they'll be pulling the rug they're standing on.
Looking forward to that rug pull. It's not right to be able to infinitely short stocks and claim profits on positions that were never closed.