Talk:Short squeeze

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anyone know what happened to the Gamma squeeze page?

Does anyone know why the gamma squeeze page was deleted? It was well sourced, and highlighted an important concept within finance that augments the impact of short squeezes particularly when call options are used. I remember in the Talk page for some strange reason someone took Political umbrage to it?!? Not sure why. It’s a concept in finance related to the convexity inherent in options. About as political as math.

Should someone bring the page back ? A google search indicates that its disappearance has been the topic of considerable online speculation and the topic is covered in many non Wikipedia places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:21DA:F091:5C1:6EA8:908F (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered too, about Gamma squeeze article. I have located the deleted page, which was deleted for being a copy paste from another source, I think. I will try to resurrect the article, free of WP:COPYVIO problems. It is referenced on several extant WP pages already.--FeralOink (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Short squeeze seems to be a phrase that is often used, yet difficult to provide anecdotal evidence it actually happens. That is what prompted me to come to this site. I'm looking for anecdotal evidence it actually happens. And furthermore, what happens when a short squeeze occurs when the shorts are NAKED shorts.

The lead is wrong

Short sellers sell stock because they believe it is overvalued by the market. That IS fundamental investing. The cited source even states that explicitly.--FeralOink (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your edit. Short squeezes are not just shorts covering, it's short covering and thereby driving up the value to completely crazy levels out of line with the fundamentals. The cited source may have been inadequate, but the description was correct. Will WP:BRD later on.--JBchrch (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert me yet please. Let me rephrase it and explain here on the talk page. I'm working on it now.--FeralOink (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink, any news? :)--JBchrch (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch, I'm so sorry! Give me another 24 hours please?--FeralOink (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GME example is factually incorrect

The GME Example for a short squeeze is factually incorrect. GME did not have a short squeeze, which would require the Shorters to cover their positions due to their risk tolerance being maxed out. A good example was the VW squeeze in 2008 which the Shorts HAD to cover their positions or absorb infinitely growing losses, but that action did not occur during the GME rally. The January rally was momentum due to the possibility that a squeeze could occur if the stock kept rising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FkaTheLastMejia (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FkaTheLastMejia, do you have any reliable source to back this statement? JBchrch (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sell high, buy low" addition should be re-instated.

On Jan 31 2021 I added this to the intro, but it has been reverted:

 ("Sell high, buy low" -- a reversal of the usual adage)

I maintain that it should remain, because most people do not understand short selling, yet they have heard "Buy low, sell high", and "Sell high, buy low" describes short selling in a nutshell, in familiar terms. BMJ-pdx (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this many people have heard of "buy low, sell high" outside of the WSB/Motley Fool crowd. Besides, the "buy low, sell high" moto is generally linked to attempts at timing the market [1][2][3] and not is particularly related to "long" positions. JBchrch (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamma Squeeze which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't perceptive buyers drive a short squeeze?

It is my understanding that a short squeeze occurs when investors who see a large short position in a stock buy the stock, which will tend to increase (artificially inflate?) the stock's price, for the purpose of pressuring (squeezing) short sellers to cover at the higher (inflated?) price. These buyers (and any others who notice) may profit by selling to the shorts and to anyone else who may be buying based on the price increase. I don't see anything about this purposeful buying to squeeze the shorts into covering in the article. —Finell 03:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamma Squeeze" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gamma Squeeze has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § Gamma Squeeze until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]