223
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

And many traders are betting that the stock price will continue to fall further.

Shares of Trump Media have erased all their gains since they began trading under the ticker DJT last month.

The stock closed down more than 8% Monday at $37.17 after falling about 11% earlier in the day. It had traded above $79 a share on March 26, the day of its debut. 

But experts say it's hard to draw any firm conclusions about what the stock price's movement means. That's because so many available shares — about 12%, one of the highest ratios of any active stock listing — reflect traders' bets that the stock will fall, said Ihor Dusaniwsky, managing director at S3 Partners, a data and predictive analytics company. 

This is called short-selling.

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] toastus@feddit.de 47 points 7 months ago

That stock is the first time that I actually considered shortselling anything.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

I would have felt sick putting my money into it in the first place.

[-] toastus@feddit.de 27 points 7 months ago

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I also would never think of actually investing in anything Trump.

Shortselling is betting that the stock value falls without actually holding the stock.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

I admit I forgot what it meant when I posted that, but I don't even think I would want my money involved in that sense. I just wouldn't want my money involved.

Also, I don't quite remember what happens if shorting fails, but it benefits the stock, doesn't it? I'd hate to be wrong and then help out Truth Social on top of it.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 14 points 7 months ago

Shorting fails if more people buy for more money. Shorting is basically getting a loan in stock, and expecting the stock to fall so that you can pay it back easier.

One example I had was that my country had a shitty currency that always lost value against the EUR, and at one point they offered loans with very low to no interest in that currency. If I took that loan, converted it to EUR, then I was basically shorting my country's currency.

What you might think of is short squeezes, which happen when some people (or more likely financial institutions) buy up so much of the stock that there simply isn't any of it the people who owe can buy. Then it goes way up for a time.

It happened at one point to VW, because Porsche bought most of the company for unrelated reasons, having people who took out loans in VW stock scrambling to find more stock to pay their debts back. You can read up on that incident to get to understand it better.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Shorting is basically getting a loan in stock, and expecting the stock to fall so that you can pay it back easier.

I'm still confused by this... doesn't it mean you have to pay for the stock if it doesn't fall as well? So in that case, it helps benefit Truth Social?

I guess I'm not understanding who benefits if shorting doesn't work.

[-] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

So you borrow a share of a stock from someone, promising to pay them back the shares and a little fee for them not having their shares available. You turn around and immediately sell their share. Let's say the share was worth 100$, so you pocket that. You anticipate the stock dropping to 80, and if you're right, when that happens you buy a stock of that company later and then give that stock to the guy you borrowed it from. You make 20$, pay that little fee, and go about your day.

If it doesn't hit your target though, at some point you decide to cut your losses, since the fees associated with not giving back the stock are prohibitively high by design. If the share stayed at 100$, you just lose that little fee. If its 150$, you paid the fee and 50$.

You always buy a stock later, but shorting weakens a stock because you sold first and that reflects in the stocks price, potentially triggering other sales.

If you wanna say "ive never bought truth social stock" you can't short, although you can still say "I've never invested in truth social".

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Whoever actually owns the stock and whoever you sold it to both benefit from the stock increase. Basically, everyone wins except the one shorting.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

In other words, that would end up generating money for Trump himself.

Which sounds like a good enough reason not to make that gamble.

[-] toastus@feddit.de 2 points 7 months ago

Well the stock rising does generate money for Trump no matter if anyone shortsells it.

If you shortsell, you position yourself against the stock.
If it rises Trump wins and you lose.
If it falls Trump loses and you win.

But neither way is it you shorting the stock that makes Trump win.
He wins if the company represented by the stock actually grows in value and the stock price rises or if idiots buy his stocks and make the price go up. But I predict that after a brief rush on the stock by his gullible idiots in the beginning noone will want to buy his stock anymore.
That's why I would consider shorting it, because I predict the stock to keep falling.
This I predict because I think the company that is represented by the stock is shit and basically worthless, which the stockprice should represent in due time.

A shortseller thus wants to profit off of Trumps losses.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 3 points 7 months ago

You do have to pay for it, yes.

So here's how you get money out of shorts:

  • You have 0 dollars. Let's assume DJT costs 1 dollar now.
  • You borrow 100 DJT at 1 dollar, and immediately sell it. You have 100 dollars, and owe 100 DJT to the lender.
  • DJT goes to 50 cents.
  • You buy 100 DJT at 50 cents, and pay your debt back. You now have 50 dollars and 0 DJT.

The point is similar to normal (long) trading, except you sell high first and buy low instead of normally buying low first and then selling high. You take a loan (in stock) to cover the intermediate time.

And why is this bad for the stock value:

  • Let's assume there are 500 DJT in existence on the market, all at your broker.
  • You borrow 100 DJT. There is now 600 DJT in existence, 500 at your broker (they still have an IOU for the 100) and 100 with you.
  • You sell the 100 DJT on the market. The value of DJT goes down, since it effectively undergoes inflation.

So the question you might have is why does the broker say it has 500 after it has lent out 500. The answer in short (no pun intended) is they make the rules, literally. The stock market, the SEC, all of that is just financial institutions governing themselves, with very little government oversight. The SEC is literally the biggest banks on Wall Street, because the government says they are the only ones smart enough to police themselves.

If this resembles fractional reserve banking, it's because it's exactly the same principle. If you don't know what that is, it's just banks doing the same "it exists both here and there" thing with loans, causing inflation of currency.

And if you question "well isn't this just an infinite money glitch, why don't they do it infinitely?", there are some limits on having to keep some reserves to prevent bank runs. That said, this market is 100 times as big as the world's combined yearly GDP, so you might wonder how effective those rules are.

[-] teft@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Welcome to the whacky world of derivatives, Squid. The Big Short movie explains shorting stock pretty well while also covering how the 2008 financial crisis happened. Pretty good movie imho.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I'm still very confused despite people doing their best to explain it to me. But I'm glad it sounds like Trump wouldn't benefit.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I'll try to explain it with less jargon. You go to a brokerage firm and say you want them to sell 100 shares of stock they own and give you that money as a loan. You agree to give them that same number of shares of stock back later at an agreed to date (usually within 90 days???). You hope that when you are required to give them back that stock it is cheaper for you to buy your own shares of it. They sell at $50/share and give you a loan for $5,000, but when you have to give their shares back to them they only cost you $25/share. You only had to spend $2500 to pay back a $5000 loan.

[-] toastus@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

Also, I don't quite remember what happens if shorting fails, but it benefits the stock, doesn't it?

First things first, I don't really know how to actually shortsell stuff. My portfolio is super basic and my original comment was only half serious.

But I think you have the causality the wrong way around.

It's less that the stock profits if my short fails.
It's more that my short fails (in that I lose money) if the price of the stock goes up.

A single small shortsale can't really affect the stock price in a meaningful way, but if it could it would generally lower the stocks price since it is a signal that the market (which the shortseller is a part of) has no trust in the stock.

That said I am by no means a trading expert myself and could possibly miss some effects on the market.
I only invest long term in broadly spread ETFs (think MSCI World and similar).

[-] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 29 points 7 months ago

It has negative income and no rational course to change that. Sadly the short sellers are profiting off the money laundering that was the entire intent.

[-] formergijoe@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Of course there's a natural course to change that. Trump becoming president so people can bribe him through Truth Social ad purchases.

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

What lies beneath the money laundering? Another grift

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

Did Trump already sell his shares?

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

If he did, then I'm pretty sure he broke the law. Again. I don't think he was allowed to do that or use the shares to secure a loan.

[-] Nusm@yall.theatl.social 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don't think he was allowed

And when exactly has that ever stopped him? And what was the penalty when he did what he wasn’t allowed? Wellllllllll………

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Yep. Just pointing this out so we can dial up the pressure ahead of time. Continuous pressure has finally gotten Biden to start talking about a ceasefire in Gaza, so pressure does work, even if it takes an unacceptably long time.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Ah, I thought he was gonna use his shares to pay off his fines, but maybe he made money another way with the IPO?

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

People were publicly pointing out that the money made from that IPO was theoretical and unrealized gains that couldn't be sold off for 6 months per SEC rules specifically because it was assumed that he would probably try. If it's found that that's what happened, we need to pressure the SEC to make the punishment more than just the cost of doing business. I'm tired of seeing businesses and billionaires getting fined only a couple million for stealing a couple billion.

[-] the_wise_wolf@feddit.de 6 points 7 months ago

I just looked it up. He has a 6 months lock-in period. CNN article

Btw. this was not an IPO, but a reverse-merger using a SPAC. That way the company going public doesn't have to adhere to the SEC's strict IPO regulations.

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Good catch, I misspoke.

[-] pm_me_your_quackers@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

Any wrongdoing is just gonna be another slap on the wrist, again. Turns out in America, billionaires hoard second chances, too; even the fake ones.

[-] angelsomething@lemmy.one 20 points 7 months ago

He can’t do anything with them for 6 months. So this is just a gravy of shadenfreude.

[-] Ferris@infosec.pub 7 points 7 months ago

his family is the board of the company and can waive the restrictions on selling at will

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

He can with a board approval. First he has to get rid of those pesky founders.🙄

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It’s delicious

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

He can sell early with a board vote approval. Unsurprisingly, he filed a suit to strip the founders of their shares two weeks ago.

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
223 points (97.4% liked)

News

23259 readers
1604 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS