Games People Play
Oh we make one another cry
Break a heart then we say goodbye
Cross our hearts and we hope to die
That the other was to blame whoa
So who won, who lost, and who was to blame in the Game Stop situation
Game Stop was involved in a short selling situation in recent days. So what happened, who won,
who lost, and who is to blame. Short selling
sounds like a complicated financial arrangement, but it is basically
simple. Let's replace the share of stock
with a coat that you purchased for $100 at a store. A short seller borrows it from you, and says he
will return it after a month, He immediately
goes to the store, returns the coat, and pockets the $100. He hopes that the coat will go on sale during
the month, say for $60, and he will purchase the coat at that reduced
price. At the end of the month, you have
your coat back, the store has received $60 in revenue from the coat instead of $100, and
the short seller has a $40 profit. This requires that no one, except the short seller, knows that he plans to the return of the coat, and
that the store put the coats on sale.
If someone gets wind of this need, and the price of the coat
is reduced to $80 after halfway through the month, then a second owner buys the coat at $80, and lists that coat for resale at $120. The short seller will have to buy that
coat at $120 to be able to return the coat that he borrowed. In this case, the original owner of the coat
still has his coat, the short seller’s loss is $20 for his repurchase of the
coat, the store has received $80 for the coat, which is a loss of only $20 in sales, and the second owner has received a $40
profit for the resale of the coat. The total
value over all individuals is still the same, but the store is $20 richer, and second
owner of the coat has a $40 profit, and the short seller has a $20 loss instead of
a $40 profit. It is hard to see how society
has a dog in this fight since the net cost is still zero. The store experiences a $40 loss of revenue in
the first case, and a $20 loss in the second case. The short seller experiences a $40 profit in
the first case, and a $20 loss in the second case. The second owner is not involved in the first
case, but has a $40 profit in the second case, by reducing the store's loss of revenue
by $20 and taking $20 from the original short seller. Does it surprise anyone that many of these second
owners purchased their stock (coats) through an app called Robinhood?
The
situation could not have existed if the knowledge that the short seller would need
a stock (a coat) was known only to the short seller. Since the knowledge that the short seller would
need the stock (a coat) became known, then the new owner of the stock (a coat) has
profited, the original owner ( the store) has less of a loss, and the short seller has a loss, instead
of a profit. The game has changed from the original short seller profiting to the short seller having a loss.