[WA]

I think you're right. Maybe WSB pushed the price initially up to like $38 or whatever on low volume. Then the big players entered, because the narrative was right, price got pushed way up, retail bought more in a maniac frenzy around $300 and big players exited.

The idea that Robinhood users can move markets is kinda silly. It's been told again and again for 6-9 months now. But a back of the napkin calculation shows that it's not very plausible: Even if 100 million Americans put their $1,200 stimulus check into stocks, that'd be only $120 billion, which isn't that much of the daily volume of the stock market. And most of them probably don't sell/trade on a daily basis, they rather baghold TSLA, AAPL and then a bit of GME.

[insert_coin]

Robinhood users move markets because they generate “free” publicity literally worth billions, not because of the volume of their transactions.

The excitement generated towards a stock, the momentum they build, is almost invaluable even if just for a few days, no matter your business or the price of your stock. Money can’t buy that.

[WA]

Yes, but my point is: is it so unlikely that big players see the sentiment, hop on the train and actually drive up the price instead of retail?

[DSingularity]

I think you over estimate the liquidity at spot prices. If you tried to buy 120$ billion dollars of stocks in one day you will cause price changes. Now imagine if that was concentrated in the Robinhood top 100?

[WA]

You're right, prices is affected by lower volume, especially in smaller stocks like GME. But I don't assume that $120 billion was all spend in a single day on a single stock.

> Now imagine if that was concentrated in the Robinhood top 100?

Well, probably not evenly distributed. Most goes to the top ten, most probably to AAPL, TSLA, FB, MSFT and other big names. I just wonder: once invested, do people actively trade all the time to cause so much volume?