Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 14, @02:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-will-be-holding-shares-when-the-game-stops? dept.

GameStop shares rise, fall and rise again in roller-coaster day of trading:

GameStop shares spiked Wednesday, reaching $348 apiece, only to come crashing down to $172 each early in the afternoon, causing multiple halts in trading of the stock due to volatility. Stocks then moved back up and ended the day at $265[*], a 7% increase for the day.

The past two days were a buying frenzy for the video game retailer's stock since Monday, when it was $136. That surge coincided with a lift to the entire stock market after Saturday's passage of the COVID relief bill in the Senate, as well as with an announcement that the video game retailer is developing a new e-commerce strategy, with Chewy.com founder Ryan Cohen heading that effort.

Cohen, who made a large investment in GameStop last year, will lead a committee seeking to transform GameStop a "technology business," the company said in a press release Monday.

GameStop shares skyrocketed from less than $20 in early January to more than $480 at the end of January thanks to a massive push by traders on the Reddit forum r/WallStreetBets. The stock price has dropped dramatically since then.

Price quote on Yahoo!

Also at BBC

Previously:
The Complete Moron's Guide to GameStop's Stock Roller Coaster
Console Options Without Disc Drives Could be GameStop's Final Death Knell
Web Site thinkgeek.com Moving in with Parent Company GameStop
GameStop Heading Towards Possible Doom
GameStop Posts Massive Loss as Pre-Owned Game Sales Plummet
GameStop's Future in Question after Failing to Secure Buyout


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 14, @03:08PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 14, @03:08PM (#1124020) Journal
    What would the point of the exercise be? The answer is that it would then depend on the power of whoever controls the ability to issue new shares (which might not be shareholders in this case, I don't know the power structure of the business). For it is feasible to issue far more shares than there is belief in the value of those shares.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Rich on Sunday March 14, @03:39PM (6 children)

    by Rich (945) on Sunday March 14, @03:39PM (#1124036) Journal

    So it would not be different to what central banks do? As opposed to Bitcoin, where the issuing is limited by available computing power. (Or a hypothetical eco-currency where the issuing is controlled by available eco-energy futures). The share controllers would probably milk the golden cow for what it's worth, but attempt to not slaughter it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @04:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @04:02PM (#1124049)

      >> (Or a hypothetical eco-currency where the issuing is controlled by available eco-energy futures).

      Stop giving St Greta ideas.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @05:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @05:01PM (#1124086)

      Bitcoin is already energy credits as seen in star trek. The value is determined by the energy devoted to securing the network.

      If less energy is available then the value drops, thus decreasing consumption. If more becomes available the value of the currency rises and people spend more on goods and services. This is perfectly in tune with nature.

    • (Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Sunday March 14, @09:29PM (3 children)

      by leon_the_cat (10052) on Sunday March 14, @09:29PM (#1124164) Journal

      Bitcoin is limited to 21 million.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @11:56PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, @11:56PM (#1124200)

        Bitcoin is limited to 21 million.

        For now. When that "limit" starts to be reached, are all those miners who have all that massive investment in hardware with which to mine, simply going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, that's it, we've mined them all." Or are they likely to force an update to the limit in the code and a quick recompile?

        Bitcoin is software. Software can be changed. Given enough people wanting more money, it will be changed.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by leon_the_cat on Monday March 15, @12:18AM (1 child)

          by leon_the_cat (10052) on Monday March 15, @12:18AM (#1124210) Journal

          Firstly I point it out because it was a philosophical choice not some arbitrary code choice. Secondly it not as easy to do as you seem to think you would have to break the current network of nodes to do so which could be chaotic or even terminal for bitcoin.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, @09:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, @09:28AM (#1124357)

            No, changing the limit wouldn't be that easy. But they've forked it and modified things before, so changing the limit can't be considered impossible. With the miners being a group with a large influence over bitcoin, and knowing that as a group they'll have a strong incentive to change the limit once the current limit is approached, it's not a huge leap to think it more likely than not that the limit will be changed.

            I don't think it would be terminal for bitcoin, though, now that people have since invented NFTs which are crazier than bitcoin could ever hope to be.