The WallStreetBets effect: What happened in GameStop's crazy week

How one subreddit — and a tech-friendly new way of investing — is shaping the market.

The WallStreetBets effect: What happened in GameStop's crazy week

Big day for GameStop.

Image: JJBers/Flickr

How do you push a stock up 140% in a few hours and 1,800% in a month, turning a once-crashing stock of a maybe-still-crashing company into one of the market's biggest winners? Well, you should ask r/WallStreetBets.

  • The 6 million subscribers to the r/WallStreetBets subreddit have long had market-moving power. And members have been pushing GameStop as a stock to invest in for almost two years, actually, based on what has seemed like fairly straightforward financial reasoning.
  • But the volume has gone crazy in the last few days. And the recent spike seems to come from something simpler: The WSB investors just … deciding to do it. A few enterprising investors decided to try to punish those who were shorting the then-still-cheap stock, because what you always need on the internet is an enemy.
  • That initial enemy was Andrew Left of Citron Research, who was a loud and large bettor against GameStop. Squeezing him — forcing him to buy more shares to cover his short position as the price went up, which then by itself would drive the price up — became goal No. 1 for WSB members. (Here's a good explanation of how that back-and-forth went down.)
  • That worked, which got other people on board, which caused larger investors to get in, which drove up the price, which made those first investors look like geniuses, which made more people pay attention. Round and round things went.
  • The WSB team is confident its strategy can work. "IM NOT SELLING THIS UNTIL AT LEAST $1000+ GME 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀 BUCKLE THE FUCK UP" was the title of a top post on the subreddit on Monday, from the user dumbledoreRothIRA.

The WallStreetBets investors see the moves as a power grab, taking the market back from the institutional investors who have always manipulated money in secret. For a while on Wednesday, the top post of on the subreddit was titled "FOR ALL THE BIG FUCKING HEDGE FUNDS MONITORING US, THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM US TO YOU, WE FUCKING OWN YOU NOW, FUCK. YOU."

Why GameStop, though? You can't overlook the connection with gamers, but it also helped that Michael Burry — one of the investors who predicted and made a fortune from the 2008 economic crisis — has been publicly saying the company was undervalued.

  • More recently, Chewy's Ryan Cohen bought a big stake in GameStop and has started pushing it to become a more viable online business.
  • It all sounds a bit like an internet con or a long-term troll, a bunch of people doing it for the lulz. "It certainly started as a meme. That's how WallStreetBets operates," Jaime Rogozinski, who created the subreddit, told Wired. But the lulz are moving the market.

GameStop's stock has had a wild week, up as high as $468 and down as low as $69 and often fluctuating wildly in the course of a couple of hours. Trading has been halted repeatedly, as the markets try to slow down the insanity, but to no avail. Insanity always immediately ensues.

  • Nobody caused a bigger jump than Elon Musk, who tweeted "Gamestonk!!" with a link to r/WallStreetBets on Tuesday night and promptly sent the stock up more than 100% in after-hours trading. Musk is a proven market-mover at this point, repeatedly moving prices up with a single vague tweet (even, in Signal Advance's case, when that stock has nothing to do with the product he's tweeting about).

The strategy worked gangbusters ... for some users. (It's easy to tell, because they love posting screenshots of their gains.) And they're not just focused on GameStop:

  • BlackBerry, for one, couldn't explain the sudden spike, but r/WallStreetBets could. "I AINT SELLIN 🚀🚀🚀🚀 BB TO THE FUCKING MOOONN 🌑🌑💎💎🤝🤝🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀," wrote user AnyHoneydew4, warning that even a brief dip in price was only a sign that things would keep booming.
  • The WallStreetBets crew is also betting on AMC, Tootsie Roll, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nokia and a number of other stocks that are both rich in 90s nostalgia and longtime favorites of short sellers. Their prices spent the week driving relentlessly upward.
On Thursday, Robinhood caused a ruckus when it banned users from buying new shares of GameStop and many of these other stocks. Robinhood cited "recent volatility" as the reason for trying to slow the market down, but all that did was turn investors' ire on Robinhood instead. They review-bombed Robinhood on the App Store, and began threatening and planning class-action lawsuits. Webull appeared to be the biggest beneficiary, as people looked for a new place to trade ... until it stopped allowing the same trades.
  • By Friday morning, though, things were back to relative normality. Rather than the more conspiratorial explanations for the stoppages on Thursday, it appears the answer was just that funding all those trades, for Robinhood or anyone, became really expensive. Robinhood, for example, reportedly raised $1 billion practically overnight just to be able to keep up.
  • Robinhood initially said it didn't have a liquidity problem, before ... ultimately determining it had a liquidity problem. "To put it in perspective, this week alone, our clearinghouse-mandated deposit requirements related to equities increased ten-fold," the company said on its blog. Single stocks like GameStop were trading so much they cost Robinhood hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits.
  • "Back to normal" doesn't apply to the meme stocks, of course. As soon as trading resumed on Friday, they shot back up; GameStop nearly doubled on Friday morning alone. And everything from AMC to Dogecoin (yes, really) was along for the ride.

The biggest remaining question, other than "when will the crash come," is what the regulatory implications will be here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz have both called for hearings into what happened with Robinhood, and appear likely to get them. And Elizabeth Warren took the SEC to task for not being more involved: "To have a healthy stock market, you've got to have a cop on the beat," she said. "That should be the SEC." Robinhood in particular is also facing huge damage to its reputation, even if it avoids the scarier legal ramifications.

But as much as anything, the GameStop Fiasco is a remarkable display of the collective power of the internet. Enough people, with enough motivation (and enough money) can turn a dying store that sells CD-ROMs into the most exciting company on Wall Street.

Updated: This story was updated on Saturday, Jan. 30, to reflect the (many, many, many) new things happening with GameStop since the story was written.

Workplace

Is it legal to fire someone while they’re on parental leave?

Twitter is in chaos right now. But that’s still not a good reason to fire someone while they’re on parental leave.

Kayvon Beykpour was terminated during his parental leave.

Screenshot: Twitter

This week, Twitter fired the company’s head of Consumer, Kayvon Beykpour, in the latest shakeup related to the Elon Musk deal.

According to Beykpour’s tweet, the senior executive was on paternity leave after welcoming a daughter last month. This brings up a lot of questions around the ethics — and legality — of firing someone while they’re on parental leave.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less
Fintech

Crypto is crumbling, and DeFi hacks are getting worse

The amount of crypto stolen in the first quarter of 2022 has already surpassed criminal hackers’ 2021 haul. There aren’t any easy fixes.

The biggest hacks of 2022 were carried out by attackers spotting vulnerabilities in smart contracts and protocols, especially in cross-chain bridges and flash loan protocols.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Until recently, DeFi seemed like it was on an exponential trajectory upwards. With the collective value of crypto peaking near $3 trillion, hackers saw a big opportunity. The only thing that may slow them down is the precipitous drop in the value of the tokens they’re going after.

DeFi hacks have been getting worse and worse, with no clear solutions in sight. According to a recent report by blockchain security firm PeckShield, the amount of money netted from DeFi hacks in the first four months of 2022, $1.57 billion, has already surpassed the amount netted in all of 2021, $1.55 billion. A report by Chainalysis found a similar trend, with the hacker haul in the first three months of 2022 exceeding a record set in the third quarter of 2021.

Keep Reading Show less
Lindsey Choo
Lindsey Choo is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. She is a graduate of UC San Diego, where she double majored in communications and political science. She has previously covered healthcare issues for the Center for Healthy Aging and was a senior staff writer for The UCSD Guardian. She can be reached at lchoo@protocol.com.
Policy

Privacy by Design laws will kill your data pipelines

The legislation could make old data pipelines more trouble than they’re worth.

Data pipelines have become so unwieldy that companies might not even know if they are complying with regulations.

Image: Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

A car is totaled when the cost to repair it exceeds its total value. By that logic, Privacy by Design legislation could soon be totaling data pipelines at some of the most powerful tech companies.

Those pipelines were developed well before the advent of more robust user privacy laws, such as the European Union’s GDPR (2018) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (2020). Their foundational architectures were therefore designed without certain privacy-preserving principals in mind, including k-anonymity and differential privacy.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Enterprise

Why AI-powered ransomware could be 'terrifying'

Hiring AI experts to automate ransomware could be the next step for well-endowed ransomware groups that are seeking to scale up their attacks.

Ransomware gangs don’t have AI ransomware. At least not yet.

Photo: Max Duzij/Unsplash

In the perpetual battle between cybercriminals and defenders, the latter have always had one largely unchallenged advantage: The use of AI and machine learning allows them to automate a lot of what they do, especially around detecting and responding to attacks. This leg-up hasn't been nearly enough to keep ransomware at bay, but it has still been far more than what cybercriminals have ever been able to muster in terms of AI and automation.

That’s because deploying AI-powered ransomware would require AI expertise. And the ransomware gangs don’t have it. At least not yet.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@procotol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins