Get started

Memestocks

Chinese Tesla Rival Zeekr Soars 35% On NYSE Debut, Hits $6.8B Shares of ZEEKR Intelligent Technology Holding Limited ( NYSE:ZK ), a global electric mobility technology brand of Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holding, rose by nearly 35% on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday, following its initial public offering (IPO). The company offered 21 million American Depositary Shares (ADS) at $21 per share. ZEEKR's stock closed at $28.26, giving it a fully diluted valuation of $6.8 billion. This successful debut comes at a time when other US EV makers, such as Tesla and Rivian, have seen a decline in their stock prices. Geely Holding's Chief Executive, Daniel Li, expressed optimism about ZEEKR's future prospects, stating that there are significant opportunities in the global new energy vehicle market and that ZEEKR is positioned as a premium electric mobility brand that supports Geely's electric transformation. Geely Holding also owns Volvo Cars and Lotus Cars. ZEEKR ( NYSE:ZK ) began delivering vehicles in October 2021 and has delivered more than 240,000 vehicles to date. The company plans to expand its market to Europe, the Middle East, and other Asian markets. In 2023, the company reported a total revenue of 51.67 billion yuan ($7.15 billion), but also recorded a net loss of 8.26 billion yuan. Overall, ZEEKR's successful debut on the New York Stock Exchange signals promising growth prospects for the company and highlights the growth potential of the global electric mobility market.
NYSE:ZKLong
by DEXWireNews
DIS Testing Fundamental SupportWhen Americans feel depressed or unhappy about life, they tend to spend more money on fun things--something to consider during a presidential election year. For now, NYSE:DIS is looking fine for its earnings report next week. It was over-speculated, so adjusting back down closer to fundamental support is normal. The gap up in February was on way better than expected earnings, so that level should hold up well. However, HFTs and MEME groups have been going gaga over earnings and other news. If HFTs or MEMEs drive it down, it will move right back up due to Dark Pool activity first, and then pro trader activity.
NYSE:DIS
by MarthaStokesCMT-TechniTrader
AMC 's CEO says no to bankruptcy and so it pumps LONGAMC on the 60 minute chart shows an early reversal out of a three week downtrend after two months of a wide ranging price action that was sideways. The more or less takes bankruptcy considerations off the table. In the meanwhile, the streaming services continue to beat down movie theaters. No matter, AMC has new bullish momentum and the trading volumes to support it. The PVT indicator shows the new trend. The TTM Squeeze indicator triggering has relevance. The trend is your friend especially if you befriend it early. You never know, the short squeeze Ape Nation has been hoping maybe just maybe could happen. I will take a long position of shares here and insure them partially with a put option to cover a wide stop loss of 15% given the expected volatility. For the shares, targeting 3.85 with 35%, 5.50 with 25% and the remaining 50% to run with a trailing stop loss.
NYSE:AMCLong
by AwesomeAvani
Ape's Guide to AMC: Charting the Rise of the Silverback StockJoin me as I break down the wild ride of AMC stock, "Ape’s Guide to AMC: Navigating the Stock Jungle". I’ll walk you through the massive swings from a high of $380 to the current low at $2, and discuss what could be coming next. From the big drop to the dramatic rise, and the steep fall we’re seeing now, I cover it all. I'm also talking about the potential for a stock split in the future and why AMC might be setting up for a massive gain by 2030. Whether you're deep in the stock game or just thinking about jumping in, this video gives you the essentials on AMC’s potential.
NYSE:AMCLong
by DigitalSurfTrading
4
🔥 FLOKI Insane Cup & Handle Pattern: Fibonacci Entry!FLOKI has seen incredible gains over the last few weeks, gaining over 800% in the last 2 months. However, I think that FLOKI is due to a minor correction. The correction is caused by both FLOKI being incredibly overbought, as well as the fact that it hit it's previous all-time high resistance area. I'm aiming for a retest of the Fibonacci Golden Pocket area between the 0.382 and the 0.5 retracements, a 30-40 percent correction from here. It might sound like a lot, but if you look at the chart FLOKI has seen multiple weeks where it corrected over 30% in a single week. Consequentially, this might pose a very good entry point for investors which have been waiting for a good entry.
Long
by FieryTrading
5
🔥 WIF: Newest Memecoin Reversal SignalWIF is one of the newer memecoins on the market and is placed in an illustrous list together with the likes of PEPE, DOGE, SHIB, FLOKI etc. As of earlier today, WIF has successfully confirmed the reversal from the bottom support of the parallel channel. This, together with an oversold RSI (for the first time since it hit Binance!) has convinced investors of a pending reversal. Stop under the most recent swing low, target at the top resistance. You can potentially turn this trade into a long-term one if the price breaks through the top resistance.
Long
by FieryTrading
2
CALL ME CRAZY but $AMC is about to cycle #bullish $5-7.50 test I have noticed a trend in the recent price action of $AMC. ** We closed 2023 at $6.18** Upon hitting the $4 (4.08) region AMC shows signs of bullish outbreak. When testing 4.08 on 1/17/24 it implused up to test 4.80 almost $5 test in the next 5 trading days following. DON'T LET THE MEDIA FOOL YOU! "MeMe StOcKs ArE dOnE" Waiting on Cramer to diss NYSE:AMC again as another leg on confluence Testing TWICE can possibly confirm a double bottom which is another confluence for a bullish outbreak as bottom has formed. NYSE:AMC has not adhered to typical technical analysis in the past as it is heavily manipulated. This week has some large earning reports in tech sector which can possibly provide EXTRA volume to push NYSE:AMC back above $5. I am entering a 7.55C 2/23 exp at market price of $4.15 #bullish #AMC #breakout #memestock This is simply a thesis and not Financial advice. Please use your own risk management and judgement.
NYSE:AMCLong
by chestephens1
GME TRENDS AND PRICE TARGETS, WE LOVE MEMESIf you've been following GME with me, you bought at 12.5 and below last month. Sell target 1 was 16.9, we came close but lost a tiny bit on the first topside pump. We bought the dip around 14.02 and below, and we were looking for 18, 21, and 25 with small retracements in between. I'm not sure, but per indicators, it seems we might see the higher targets of 21 and 25 before we see the retracement targets of 10 and 8. Faster and steeper we go up, the faster and steeper we drop, so remember, the time to be flinging money in without much worry was under 12.5. Now, you'll want to be trimming profits and compounding. How much should you sell and when? Only you can make that decision. However, feel free to use some my price targets if you're struggling to set your own. If you're new to trading or my charts. We usually buy and sell on the major trends, and use the breakouts as a chance to compound profits, or simply wait for the right trade to present itself, whether bull or bear. Just because we are selling at these levels in a longer term trade doesn't mean there aren't chances to jump into shorter term trades. However, USE caution at these levels. If you're bearish on this stock, you want to see it wedge down, and if bullish you want the breakout to the topside. I tried to make this chart as simple as possible. Squeeze targets included, but be REAL, it's unlikely, and it will be fast up and fast down should it occur. However, bears need to be real as well and realize that some of those topside numbers are very possible. Options get a little wild around the 26 and 32 dollar marks I believe. You only wanna play with weekly options if you know how they move in relation to the price or you'll get killed from theta. Good luck!
NYSE:GME
by nicktussing77
6
Pump incoming! HarryPotterObamaSonic10Inu Aka $Bitcoin After a ridiculous 266% gain over 2 weeks on our last trade on Samoyedcoin, we are back with another memecoin that looks poised to gain. We're in a classic symmetrical triangle and have touched our strong support line. The risk/reward is heavily skewed in our favor at this point. The sell off seems exhausted and we should bounce here. We're looking for a 90% gain and would cut losses at -30%. Best of luck, y'all. - Sultan of Chart
CRYPTO:BITCOINUSDLong
by Sultan_of_Chart
A Price, A Retard, And An Impossible Number: The Ballad Of $1700Okay.. We all know who/what I am here, and if you don’t then you’re new and I welcome you. Let's imagine we're a financial entity, with: market making privileges in equity, and a large market share of order processing, meaning we could, potentially, internalize demand as liabilities (IOUs/FTDs) or let them pass through to the market. with access to all standard products, meaning we're only limited by having to find a counterpart to any financial instrument we might want to use - even bespoke instruments. a big balance sheet. a large contact network, including political, enforcement and media. a widespread reputation of "knowing what we're doing" in a field in which very few people know what they're doing. For some reason or another, we decide to short a stock - we're fairly confident that it'll go bankrupt. Why we are so confident is irrelevant - we just are. However, we're not really allowed - or it's suspicious, or just want to avoid the connection - to have a position in the securities we market-make, therefore we use our network of institutions to have a series of hedge funds - not us, but bound to us through shared ownership or debt or aligned incentives or whatever - hold the short positions for us. It's also possible that these hedge funds are taking this short position of their own volition, and we have nothing to do with it yet. The point is, this specific stock has a growing short interest. It's easy to find the shares to borrow. All broker-held shares are kept within the DTCC books, that means they're all kept in a neat pile. We can borrow from the pile/warehouse and throw a few pennies back as fees. We then sell these stocks to retail, so the stocks end up right back on the borrowable pile - they never "leave" the brokerage, and the brokerage stores them in the same pile. We're adding a liability (the short stock) and an asset (the cash) on our sheet. They're fungible, and it's all happening in aggregate and behind closed doors, so nobody has actual proof - hell, nobody has reason to suspect in the first place, since the stock in question is a "bad stock," according to the news, and so the collective meme says it should go down. Since each sold stock goes back to the pile, there's no shortage to the borrowable supply, and therefore no reason for the interest fee to go up. We can keep pointing at a share, using that share to create a liability, receive cash, and then point at the same share again. Also, if we occasionally/often fail to deliver/borrow, who's gonna notice, let alone stop us, right? In essence: Customer bids/demands a share. The bid is routed to us by the broker. We grab a share from the borrowable pile - add this to liabilities. We add this same share to the customer's assets. We also take the customer's cash from their assets, and drop it in our assets. The customer's share is stored in the borrowable pile, thanks to the broker, so the pile's size hasn't changed. Result: Demand is satisfied. The borrow pile is unchanged. Our liabilities grow. Supply is not reduced. We took the customer's cash. We just need to be careful about the reporting methodology - make sure everything's tidy when the picture's taken, and as long as the pile is large enough relative to the daily volume, it's foolproof. Alright fantastic, each sale is free money, and the sold stock goes right back for-sale. Unnoticed, we're actually recycling the supply. The demand, on the other side, isn't - buyers need actual cash to buy, and that shit runs out. With endless supply and limited demand, the price goes down. Price going down should increase demand, but as long as the price is expected to continue going down, then that's neutered - people don't buy because the price is low, but because they expect it to rise. Besides, more demand means more sales, and more profit, yes? Eventually, we're confident the company will go bankrupt, and then we'll just be left with two piles: one of cash, and one of worthless liabilities, valued at 0. Pure profit, no need to even pay taxes, since we didn't really close our positions. Then, two things happen. First, some schmuck begins actually looking at the numbers - "bad stock" meme isn't enough for him, and he realizes that the stock is too cheap, related to the fundamentals. He begins buying and spreading the word, which challenges our preferred meme. Suddenly, there's a narrative of counter-culture/resistance around buying the stock, it's seen as giving us the middle finger, and the kids think that's cool. Whatever, let's underestimate them. The second thing to happen, is that another guy - this one actually has three commas, so he's a bit more difficult to deal with - buys a bunch of the stock, and declares his intent to become an activist investor. He maneuvers intelligently, and before long, he's chairman of the board. While we're good at making memes for boomers, this dude is good at making internet-native memes, and he, without ever actually interacting directly with the community, manages to cement himself as a trustworthy, competent figure, opposed to wall street and internet savvy. He outlines a turnaround plan which actually - independently of everything else - makes sense, and he brings the drive and level of compromise a founder figure can provide, as opposed to distant institutional owners. Now, a short position is a leveraged position, meaning we can be margin called if our unrealized losses exceed our collateral. Therefore, as the stock price stops going down, and begins going up, we have to begin to actually monitor the stock price and the short position size, versus the rest of our assets - and not all assets, but those considered high quality liquid assets, and therefore valid collateral. The way this works is, different asset types get assigned different weightings: the more liquid and risk-free the asset, the higher it counts. Cash is completely accounted, at 100%, but a risky bond might be counted at 10% only. Some assets might not count at all. The difference between the average short-sale price, and the current market price, multiplied by the short position size, can't exceed our high quality liquid assets, or we get a margin call. Liability: Current Market Price * Position Size, the value of the equities owed Assets: Average Sold Price * Position Size, the cash we got for the sales Our collateral must be greater than the difference between these. `(Average Sold Price - Current Market Price) * (Position Size) < = Value of HQLA Suddenly, demand - which has been growing steadily thus far - spikes. This has gone viral, and the transacted volume goes insane - way beyond what we can handle. The daily demand is bigger than the pile, so we're forced to let some of it through. Our methods had not been stress tested before, and thus we slipped. This means the price starts increasing, which fuels both more demand - from FOMO - and more supply - from people who consider the stock overvalued, and an easy short. The internal supply chains break, suddenly everyone's getting margin requirement notifications. The brokers don't necessarily know what's happening, all they know is that they sold a lot of the stock, and before they can turn around and buy it from us, the price has doubled - margin requirements go up! So, seeing this, trading is stopped at the broker level - they literally can't afford to owe any more shares. The apple store is out of apples. Close only. We, however, can keep selling, and we do. No new long positions, only new short positions - perfect, the price has to go down, regardless of the demand! The price falls down, the news spin this as a squeeze that's now over. The price falls all the way down to 40$, and then something breaks. Someone gets a margin requirement they can't meet, or someone places a buy order that's large enough, or something else happens, and forced buying begins, which again spikes the price. Liquidations are carried out, and at some point, these short positions end up in the market maker's books. While a hedge fund can get killed from such a spike, not us. We're a massive player, and we can sustain a lot more. We consolidate most of the short positions, to avoid any further melt-ups, and formulate an actual long-term strategy to get out of this mess. Melvin, Archegos, and others, are now dead, and we hold their books within ours. Up to now, we've had to survive by using collateral against the short positions, which means that, at a certain point, we need to liquidate non-qualifying assets, and turn them into cash (or some other acceptable form of collateral.) Therefore, when the stock price rises, we need to sell our other positions, and turn them into cash. This explains the stock's negative beta: when its price rises, we sell other stocks to raise cash, which lowers their prices. When crypto is no longer acceptable collateral, we sell it for cash, and the price dumps around June. So, in essence, the stock price has an inverse correlation to the price of anything else in our books that's not collateral. However, this isn't the best way to handle this - this is affecting the rest of our business, and won't work in a longer timeframe. Since we're a market maker, we don't really need to do the whole song and dance around borrowing shares, and holding collateral we can just directly create them as liabilities. This is the famous Fail to Deliver - they marked your assets and their liabilities, but that's it. Also, instead of being worried about collateral we're now worried about solvency. Okay so we turn around to security based swaps/total return swaps. What are these? They're a piece of paper that's worth the difference between the values/returns of two securities. I can then replace the shorts vs. collateral method with swaps. No need to bother so much with high quality collateral, since whatever's on the other side of the swap essentially functions as collateral - I only need collateral for the difference. I can get a negative exposure on the stock price, against a positive exposure on the overall market. This way, if both go up together, then it makes no difference to me. Likewise if they both go down together. Any decrease in value from the movement of one is offset by the movement in the other. Let's assume our swap is done against a broad market basket and call it the counterweight (CW.) Now, instead of the stock and the market having an inverse correlation, they have a positive one. If the stock goes up 10%, then as long as the CW also goes up 10%, then the value of the swap hasn't changed. I don't have to massively sell anything, it's less suspicious, reporting rules are way more relaxed, the enforcement agency is much more, uh, amenable to my proposals. This works both for being long stock vs short market, or long market vs short stock - I can finetune my exposure both ways. Importantly, what before were these counter-cyclical spikes, are now pro-cyclical. Has the stock gone up? Nah, it's the whole market, nothing suspicious! While before we counteracted the demand with short-selling, now we just fail to deliver - essentially neutralizing demand. Sure, that's even more troublesome, but nobody's ever paid any mind to Dr. Trimbath before, why would they start now? So if anyone buys the stock, we just add that to our liabilities, without it impacting actual market supply/demand. We can selectively decide to let some demand pass, in case we need to raise the price. What this brings about, then, is a delicate balance: we can let demand for the stock reach the market, in which case the price increases. we can let demand for the stock go to our liabilities directly, in which case the price decreases. Then, we can observe demand/supply, and have an algorithm decide which % of purchases to deliver. Monitor social media. Bullish sentiment? Sell them calls, and reduce the delivery % (let the spot purchases go directly to the balance sheet) - price doesn't rise. Bearish sentiment? Do the opposite. So now If the stock's demand goes up, we can decide whether to lower the delivery %, through which we avoid a price increase, but in exchange become more levered. We want the price to be as high as possible, up to the point in which we get margin called - the ceiling. Therefore, we'll deliver as much as we can, and start FTDing when the price gets too high. If the stock's demand goes down, we can decide to increase the delivery %, through which we lower our leverage, but in exchange the price doesn't go down. We don't want low prices: more people will buy, and we'll lower our average entry price. Therefore, we'll reduce leverage as much as we can. We might prefer to lower the price, but that'd depend on more meme-manipulative strategies, and not market-based ones. Therefore, we observe demand + supply, and decide what % to internalize, and what % to externalize, thereby controlling the price. Depending on how big of an institution we are, we might be able to do the same, to a lesser extent, to the CW itself. Say, if we processed 70% of all orders, who's to say we can't nudge the S&P a bit, eh? Even if we can't, though, that's unimportant. If the CW's price goes up, that gives us more breathing range. We can tolerate a higher ceiling stock price without danger, so we'll internalize less, reducing leverage, and increasing the price, until we reach the new, heightened ceiling. If the CW's price goes down, that gives us less range. We can tolerate a lower ceiling high stock price or risk a margin call, so we'll have to internalize more, and become more levered, but lowering the stock price. Alternatively, we may choose to pump the CW - a couple million hitting the ask at the right moment should be enough. We have, then, two variables of import: the CW's price, over which we may or may not have a degree of influence. the stock price, which results from demand, which we observe, and % of FTDs, which we control. In this way, short selling is something we long stopped doing. Did the shorts close? Not really, but who cares. The question is whether we still have an exposure to the stock price, regardless of the mechanism. Up to now we have a nice little model. It's not infallible: our control over the variables might not be perfect, and if demand doesn't stop we'll eventually be in trouble, but these dudes need to eat - wait long enough, and they'll get discouraged. A split, you say? The size of my liabilities hasn't changed. Yeah, they're 4 times as many stocks, but IDGAF about stock number - I care about the notional size of the position. "In the shape of a stock dividend"? Yeah, nope. Spread some confusion about it. What can they do? Yeah, they'll seethe, but they've already been seething all along. If someone in an actual position of power comes around, we'll send some guys in suits to dazzle them with words. Who will they believe, the suits, or cherrypicked examples of particularly stupid apes? We like the chaos. The more chaos, the more tiring it is to find the truth, and the longer we can get away with shit. Unless the company withdraws from our system. In which case, I have no idea, because the debate shifts over to the legal battleground instead. What else could threaten us? Well. You know what. DRS. (Direct Registration of shares) Moving these lendable shares out of brokers hands, and off of the DTCC. On one hand, if 100% of the shares are accounted for outside our system, then we're suddenly on the defensive. Now they don't really have to care about what we say the price is, do they? They could separate completely, accounting for all the shares, and trade within a separate system. What would we do with the deluge of DRS that'll hit? I have no idea, but it seems like the supply/demand equivalent of dividing by zero. On the other hand, every share removed is, essentially, forcefully accounted demand. Say, you buy a share, I drop it on liabilities and FTD, and then you DRS it, then you're indirectly increasing leverage, since (total shares in books/actual shares in my vault, "the ratio") just got reduced by one on both the numerator and denominator. Do that enough times, and since the numerator is higher than the denominator, we're gradually increasing the ratio, which makes the effect of demand on price have a larger magnitude. How? Because the ratio is also the ratio in which I transform demand into either a price increase or leverage. When we turn demand into price increase or leverage, the rate at which that happens is that ratio - the more we DRS, the higher the "cost" of turning demand into price or leverage. Meaning, the more we DRS, the more violent price changes will be, and the more magnified the leverage assumed will be. DRS 100%, and that rate becomes Therefore, a separate market observer might want to consider two indicators as endgame conditions: the DRS percentage + its rate of change, which can be proxied by the price of the stock, against some measure of how much free cash retail has, because this determines the speed of DRS. The lower the price, and the more available cash, the faster DRS will increase. the price of the stock, against the CW (let's assume a broad market index of multiple asset classes.) If the stock outpaces the market, then we know the swaps are closer to breaking - this will have two possible effects: every time except the last, it will cause the stock price to go down, or the market prices to go up, to keep the swaps alive. eventually, the swaps will die, and then the stock will go up, and the CW go down, in a self-reinforcing de-leveraging. So now what the hell happens? I have no clue. I wouldn't want to find out, either. I'd take more and more risky moves. If at one point I'd have been careful about the legality of my moves, then by the end that wouldn't really matter much. Might even want to try to get political power to leverage that. After a certain point, the capital market problem spills over into the legal, social, memetic, political. Whoever's managing this shitshow hasn't slept well in a while, I can guarantee that. Let’s see how this Ballad continues/pans out, If you made it down here I commend you for at least taking the time in reading this.To all of my Retards, I will see you on Banana Planet.
NYSE:GMELong
by Captain_Cam
23
Unlock the Memeverse: Entry Point at 0.021179 for $MEME/USDT! 🚀🚀 **Crypto Alert! Meme Coin Special: $MEME/USDT** 🚀 Entry Point: 0.021179 (Consider entering before for optimal results, but the sweet spot is at 0.021179) **Targets:** - Target 1: 0.022122 🚀 - Target 2: 0.023075 🎯 - Target 3: 0.024859 🌟 **Stop Loss:** 0.018630 ⛔ Prepare for the MEME Coin journey! 🚀 This is not just a trade; it's a meme-orable opportunity! Dive in at the specified entry point for maximum potential gains. Keep those targets in sight, but also, manage your risk with the designated stop loss. 🎯💰 Remember, meme trading comes with its own flavor of excitement. Enjoy the ride, and may the memes be ever in your favor! 🌐🚀 #MEMECoin #CryptoAdventure
Long
by Bitxer_PK
5
GameStop: Remains In A Position to Break Bullishly From Its ZoneGME has been getting sold off with the macro for quite some time and it continues to push deeper and deeper into dangerous territory. At this point in time, it has pushed slightly below the 0.382/0.886 Confluence Zone and is now at the 200 SMA, but with that, we can see that the Local Bullish Shark can extend into a 1.618 Extension, so the Breakout watch is far from over on GME though we are getting towards levels where one may leave it alone. I would say that if GME breaks below $11.50, there would be a very distinct chance of it dumping down to $9.5, but if it instead holds above $11.5 and pushes back above $14.00, then we could instead see GME make a rapid move up to $18.00, which would be just high enough to test the supply line of our Channel/Falling Wedge. From there we could possibly break out of it and go for the measured move, but for now, I'd say one would probably want to have a short-term position to take profits on at $18.00 and a separate longer-term position to hold strong until GME gets the big measured move breakout to $74 - $134
NYSE:GMELong
by RizeSenpai
4
Nobody is talking about Voyager.OTC:VYGVQ took a one way ticket to Goblin Town after the fall of Voyager Digital. For the past year the sock has been trading sideways with little action. Maybe it's the copium talking, but I have suspicion that OTC:VYGVQ is not dead just yet. Here are a few points to back up my hypothesis: -There is a massive butterfly harmonic that just completed on the 3D chart -U.S. regulators have charged Ex-CEO Steve Ehrlich for fraud and deliberately lying about customer asset protection. Funny things always happen with law suits and bankruptcy claim. -The stock recently broke out of descending wedge with a massive wick up to 0.2, which makes me think some bigger money is entering. Could it be the Composite Operator? Ehrlich? An activist investor? Who knows. 0.2 and 0.5 are key levels to watch historically; straight up and straight down between these areas. -Lastly, and maybe the most far reaching point yet, there is a prominent gap on the daily @ 1.92 meaning there is some trapped liquidity up there. The gap occurred during a weekly transition which increases the odds of it being filled from my experience. Now it could take months, even years (potentially) for OTC:VYGVQ to reach that level again (if the stock doesn't die and get delisted, which could definitely happen). Only time will tell. I'm letting it ride for now.
OTC:VYGVQLong
by thomaszkry