benhacker

And just so we are all on the same page, don't read too much into EQ showing the shares as "restricted" when they still aren't even showing prices for the shares ?

Thanks, I'm in same boat. I'll be calling them early next week to deal with this... I assume some delay is reasonable. If anyone calls sooner and figures out the process, feel free to share.

I just meant to say "what data point" are you using to say your shares are still unregistered. Transfer agent showing them as "restricted" or something else?

Hasilp, are you gauging this (non-registration) because your name isn't in the S-1 or for some other reason?

Fidelity said explicitly to me that this would *not* be an IRA distribution.

I'm crying right now because someone would have... ;-)

Why is buying a stock for whatever reason illegal? What does any of this have to do with the rule of law? Also, if you think the stock is manipulated, why deal with this stock at all? Nobody forces you to play here. Spek, not endorsing the op, but stock cornering was a huge issue in the lead up to the 1929 crash. Much of the 40/34 act and the creation of the SEC was to ensure manipulation was not going to happen. There were stock pools, covert groups acting in concert, which was made illegal (or it had to be disclosed if you were acting as a group). I don't know the specifics of what kinds of options trades would be illegal, but clearly someone buying huge money in short term calls is at least reason enough to raise an eyebrow about manipulation. It's true that we are all free to avoid names that appear manipulated, and no disagreement, but I do share the general view that lack of a level of consistently enforced rules is a very bad sign for US markets.

Thanks for sharing. Good read, and he seems like he will do well (and already has). Great statement.

The options expiry from 1/29 might account for 5-6mn short shares closed. On Friday, with GME at $312, there were 8.47mn shares ITM, with 7.39mn shares ITM for Calls above $60. These contracts were established this week, since contracts above $60 weren't available until Monday. Looking forward until Jan 2023, 99.9k contracts are ITM as of now with GME at $312. That's 10 million shares. There aren't many large OTM call positions from here— premiums are ridiculous, you're better to sell. The conclusion is that a large portion of the outstanding shorts are still unhedged... Yeah, sorry, I wasn't saying options expiration took down the entire short position, there is also the last week of massively liquid trading that I would assume most short sellers existed reduced meaningfully during (and took their losses) - in addition to options expiration.

I have no basis to say (Melvin comment specifically) but based on position sizing limits I’m familiar with in these kinds of strategies and funds, I would doubt very highly that their loss is more than 20-25% related to GME by itself on the high end. I’d guess guess general correlation, bad bets, and leverage explain it. I’m actually quite curious to see short interest reported on GME in 10 days (reported for end of month) because I’m expecting with options expiry it will be nearly gone. I simply can’t see anyone staying in a short like this after this move. Anyone shorting here is a new short or has risk rules I’ve never heard of...

The losses were definitely not solely because of GME. Heavily shorted shares are up around 50% in January so plenty of pain to go around beyond just GME.

Got it. The interest is taxed twice. Now I see your view. I think it’s definitely not a road to riches but it makes sense IMO in some cases.

TwoCities: I think this mention here of "paying taxes twice" is incorrect... JRM's assertion is in essense right (with a starting assumption). *IF* you have a bond allocation in your 401(k), then borrowing money out of your 401(k) and repayinig in back with interest over time is in affect the same but better *if* your interest rate is better than your bond alternative (of course noting the various vagaries of 401(k) loans, forced pay backs, etc). (401k loans should in no way prevent regular contributions to a 401(k)...) You don't pay taxes on the interest *twice* as you suggest, you only pay once. You put pre-tax $$$ into your 401k, and when you loan them out, you don't get taxed on that, and then you put the interest in (you can think of the interest as simply an extra contribution to your 401k) and of course when you retire and withdraw you are taxed on *all* contributions + gains.... yes, you will have more taxes on exist if you model this out, but that is because you effectively stuffed more $$$ into the 401(k)... so I would call that a feature not a bug... But I would say JRM is basically right... again, *if* you are offseting a bond allocation with the loan, i think it's reasonable. If you aren't offsetting a bond allocation, you have a complex calc of risk, volaitity, and return as likely your 401(k) inivesting will grow faster than your 401(k) loan. Thought experiment: What if you could have a 401(k) loan which "charged" 20%... would you do it? Answer --> You should.. if you don't see the reason why you would, then I think you aren't in a situation where you have absolutely maxed out all tax advantaged contributions and are looking for more ways to stuff $$$ into tax deferred accounts....

Ditto. I re-entered here after a long hiatus right before the NCIB... I haven't sold as I think it's really a good start a catalyst here. Still too cheap. Not a huge position though for me.

I think Wabuffo captured this really well. It's easy to look at this and say "look, there is a high multiple SAAS/subscription company strapped on this old line firm"... but the problem is that you have to make a determination that the SAAS aspect of this is actually worth anything. It's been a money losing business, built by a money losing team over years... clearly, by a company with a culture which is unlikely to attract the right team. I would be the first to stand up and say a lot of the crazy valuations ascribed to these kinds of other public companies (TYL, etc) and say statistically how is it that an entire class of businesses can be valued by XYZ metrics, while a whole other class of businesses have very modest valuations??? However, in this case you have two specific businesses (TYL and DJCO's biz specifically)... there is no simple basis to say DJCO has built something that has real R&D asset value which has been written off the P&L but still is meaningfully valuable. I find the pitches saying the opposite don't address the fact the business hasn't done great despite any customer retention so far... if anything, if history is any guide, I think you need to assume the opposite. i have been short DJCO off and on for 5 years on a sum of parts basis, I closed it earlier this year. I don't strongly enough (anymore, at current prices) feel that their non-traded assets are worth basically nothing, but it's a huge leap to think they have something of material value - enough to make DJCO equity interesting... no one needs to buy what DJCO has... it may just be that they get steamrolled by TYL and wind this biz down and you are left with a bet on BYD + WFC with corporate overhead. I always get personally caught up and am thus personally skeptical of "value" pitches on growth-y / high valuation businesses. Growth, incremental customers, and a clear Phil Fisher model is way better to find "good" high valuations businesses... I'm seriously doubtful that DJCO has any elements of that based on corporate culture *and* their track record. My 2 cent... but again, no position right now.