Show them no mercy.

[AtiliusRegulus]

If possible add wood to the fire which consumes them

[AtiliusRegulus]

The ceo and analysts of this company need to be harassed at every quarter until they spill the beans

[ElJorge]

I’m curious if they lost their ass shorting Truth Social after the botched assassination attempt.

[lettherebehouse]

[CleveTown™]

It should be common knowledge, but for some reason it's still a major ick for conservatives to be labeled a "CoNspIrACy ThEORisT!!!" on MSM television shows when presented with evidence such as this (and other damning evidence like a 4/12 sloped roof being the reason SS weren't up there. "They may fall" lmaooo -- meanwhile they were already on an identical roof behind Trump the whole time).

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Truth Social is absolutely absurdly overvalued. It is valued at approximately $7 billion. That would suggest that at some point in the not too distant future, it should have earnings in the area of $700 million to justify that valuation. It has very little revenues and of course, is losing money. On a risk/reward basis, could it achieve earnings in the future that justify that valuation? Possibly, but it is very unlikely.

Shorting stocks is not for the feint of heart though. Valuations can be silly, and remain silly, for longer than a short can maintain his margin. That has happened countless times. A great and notorious example in the not too distant past is Gamestop. That company had (and still does have) relatively limited value. So it made sense for a lot of people to short it when it was obviously well above intrinsic value several years ago. But then, for reasons most probably remember, there was an organized squeeze on the short sellers and the stock ran to over $80 and short sellers lost an absolute fortune when they covered. There can be long periods of time when intrinsic value and market value are hugely disparate.

If we go back to the late 1990s, there were many dot.com stocks that were absurdly valued. But they kept climbing and shorts got squeezed and lost small fortunes. Eventually, many of these names went to zero, or were bought for pennies on the dollar before the bailiff could lock the doors.

There will be guys who short Truth Social regularly because they can't believe the valuations will be sustained. I never short (I have tax reasons specific to my situation which impact that somewhat) because I know the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent if I place too big a bet.

Overall though, almost all stocks have significant short positions attached to them. To allow smooth block trading of liquid companies, brokers will take short positions and then cover relatively quickly all the time, but there is almost always a significant short position attached to even the most blue chip of blue chips. It can be done for allowing smooth trading, it can be done to match a position against a derivative (convertible debenture, option etc.), in a pairs trade where you go long a stock in a similar industry and many other reasons where the person making the short isn't actually "naked" and has a counterbalancing position to mitigate or even eliminate risk.

The point being, there are dozens of reasons why a stock could get a large short position on any given day. Trying to read much into that is a fool's errand.

[Bush4Ever.]

Truth Social is absolutely absurdly overvalued. It is valued at approximately $7 billion. That would suggest that at some point in the not too distant future, it should have earnings in the area of $700 million to justify that valuation. It has very little revenues and of course, is losing money. On a risk/reward basis, could it achieve earnings in the future that justify that valuation? Possibly, but it is very unlikely.

Shorting stocks is not for the feint of heart though. Valuations can be silly, and remain silly, for longer than a short can maintain his margin. That has happened countless times. A great and notorious example in the not too distant past is Gamestop. That company had (and still does have) relatively limited value. So it made sense for a lot of people to short it when it was obviously well above intrinsic value several years ago. But then, for reasons most probably remember, there was an organized squeeze on the short sellers and the stock ran to over $80 and short sellers lost an absolute fortune when they covered. There can be long periods of time when intrinsic value and market value are hugely disparate.

If we go back to the late 1990s, there were many dot.com stocks that were absurdly valued. But they kept climbing and shorts got squeezed and lost small fortunes. Eventually, many of these names went to zero, or were bought for pennies on the dollar before the bailiff could lock the doors.

There will be guys who short Truth Social regularly because they can't believe the valuations will be sustained. I never short (I have tax reasons specific to my situation which impact that somewhat) because I know the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent if I place too big a bet.

Overall though, almost all stocks have significant short positions attached to them. To allow smooth block trading of liquid companies, brokers will take short positions and then cover relatively quickly all the time, but there is almost always a significant short position attached to even the most blue chip of blue chips. It can be done for allowing smooth trading, it can be done to match a position against a derivative (convertible debenture, option etc.), in a pairs trade where you go long a stock in a similar industry and many other reasons where the person making the short isn't actually "naked" and has a counterbalancing position to mitigate or even eliminate risk.

The point being, there are dozens of reasons why a stock could get a large short position on any given day. Trying to read much into that is a fool's errand.

Wrong.

Spoiler:

[elartman1973]

Truth Social is absolutely absurdly overvalued. It is valued at approximately $7 billion. That would suggest that at some point in the not too distant future, it should have earnings in the area of $700 million to justify that valuation. It has very little revenues and of course, is losing money. On a risk/reward basis, could it achieve earnings in the future that justify that valuation? Possibly, but it is very unlikely.

Shorting stocks is not for the feint of heart though. Valuations can be silly, and remain silly, for longer than a short can maintain his margin. That has happened countless times. A great and notorious example in the not too distant past is Gamestop. That company had (and still does have) relatively limited value. So it made sense for a lot of people to short it when it was obviously well above intrinsic value several years ago. But then, for reasons most probably remember, there was an organized squeeze on the short sellers and the stock ran to over $80 and short sellers lost an absolute fortune when they covered. There can be long periods of time when intrinsic value and market value are hugely disparate.

If we go back to the late 1990s, there were many dot.com stocks that were absurdly valued. But they kept climbing and shorts got squeezed and lost small fortunes. Eventually, many of these names went to zero, or were bought for pennies on the dollar before the bailiff could lock the doors.

There will be guys who short Truth Social regularly because they can't believe the valuations will be sustained. I never short (I have tax reasons specific to my situation which impact that somewhat) because I know the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent if I place too big a bet.

Overall though, almost all stocks have significant short positions attached to them. To allow smooth block trading of liquid companies, brokers will take short positions and then cover relatively quickly all the time, but there is almost always a significant short position attached to even the most blue chip of blue chips. It can be done for allowing smooth trading, it can be done to match a position against a derivative (convertible debenture, option etc.), in a pairs trade where you go long a stock in a similar industry and many other reasons where the person making the short isn't actually "naked" and has a counterbalancing position to mitigate or even eliminate risk.

The point being, there are dozens of reasons why a stock could get a large short position on any given day. Trying to read much into that is a fool's errand.

Wrong.

Spoiler:

Do you play the acordian?

[AtiliusRegulus]

;banderas: Artman knows stocks lol

[Alex_Murphy]