/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27508148
Short selling ban means they can't sell a bulk amount of stock.
They will continue to just sell dinky amounts as they did today, driving the price down.

>>27444685
>Well one piece of evidence is the low volume of trades to see such a large percentage drop in the value.

It dropped a lot on low volume due to lack of demand. Robinhood etc stopped people from being able to buy GME shares during the drop. Also during the FOMO rise to $500 most buy orders would have been market buys rather than limit buys. So there was a relative lack of limit buys between $100 and $500 when made the price fall easily.

>For the retailers to be able to drop the price that much, or for anyone really, you’d need to see large volumes just like we saw large volumes of buy orders leading up to the ~$450 peak.

The large volumes of buys leading to the 500 peak was a combination of retail FOMO and shorters covering their losing positions.

>Knowing the short position was over 140% of total public shares available, you can do math to find out how much selling needed to happen in order to cover what some are saying (like S3) where they’ve covered the majority and are now closer to 53% shorting. I didn’t see enough volume to believe such a claim. All I’ve seen is people in bad positions telling me to stop doing what I’m doing.

Most of the short covering probably happened during the initial high volume rise into the triple digit share price. Volumes on the three days that caused the price to go from $40 to over $100 were 196M, 177M, 178M (total volume 552M) where total shares in GME are 70M and 1.4x that is 98M. 98M is less than 552M.

>>27437819
I mean sure it only tanked 50% today

It's over.