The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New

Barrons2021-02-08

In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop. As with ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

Roven
·2021-02-09
sell
回复
点赞
举报
收起
- 388ef7fc:
  yes
  2021-02-09
  回复
  举报
Ooi
·2021-02-08
It bad
回复
点赞
举报
johndoe007
·2021-02-08
to the moon again?🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
回复
点赞
举报
RogerLew
·2021-02-08
Up up up
回复
点赞
举报
hkagoh
·2021-02-08
lol
回复
点赞
举报
rofl
·2021-02-08
Nice
回复
点赞
举报
JulianAlson
·2021-02-08
Still going up?
回复
2
举报
SureHeng
·2021-02-08
[强] [强]
回复
点赞
举报
Fredwkh
·2021-02-08
Why am I not surprised! Anyone any comments for coins
回复
点赞
举报
zRui
·2021-02-08
👍🏻
回复
点赞
举报
WhiteWizard
·2021-02-08
[白眼]
回复
点赞
举报
Monke
·2021-02-08
As long as theres money to be made/loss, people will follow. That’s capitalism. Nothing new. Anyway, like for likes and follow guys. [开心]
回复
6
举报
收起
- DTWX:
  Agreed!
  2021-02-08
  回复
  举报
- Cams:
  True
  2021-02-08
  回复
  举报
Chimmy
·2021-02-08
Nobody said it is new.Its not. It also happened to Volkswagon in thr past.This time its a big deal because small time retailers and banding together online (via Reddit WSB) to coordinate and buy in to try to take down the hedge funds and shorts
回复
3
举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1111770502","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","media":"Barrons","content":"<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1601382232898","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".IXIC","symbol_name":"NASDAQ Composite","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","article_id":"1111770502","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1601382232898","name":"Barrons"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"barrons.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站"},"translate_title":"游戏驿站现象并不新鲜","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"GME":0.9},"content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":383962122,"gmtCreate":1612830936766,"gmtModify":1703765558042,"author":{"id":"3553157326497244","authorId":"3553157326497244","name":"Roven","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a74ab498f0a07b87c3584adda4f8d4a2","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3553157326497244","authorIdStr":"3553157326497244"},"htmlText":"sell","listText":"sell","text":"sell","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/383962122","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3522465,"gmtCreate":1612835451968,"gmtModify":1635765684427,"authorId":3573219648552108,"author":{"id":3573219648552108,"idStr":"3573219648552108","authorId":3573219648552108,"name":"388ef7fc","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":383962122,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"yes","text":"yes","html":"yes"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389537086,"gmtCreate":1612786592645,"gmtModify":1703764980795,"author":{"id":"3573220406186668","authorId":"3573220406186668","name":"Ooi","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2d555b3cef5bdec0b3d78b0faeb369fe","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573220406186668","authorIdStr":"3573220406186668"},"htmlText":"It bad","listText":"It bad","text":"It bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389537086","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389262268,"gmtCreate":1612778892254,"gmtModify":1703764881118,"author":{"id":"3574855677909594","authorId":"3574855677909594","name":"johndoe007","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a8ff3036f0f1e9317bf2965a76c4954e","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574855677909594","authorIdStr":"3574855677909594"},"htmlText":"to the moon again?🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","listText":"to the moon again?🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","text":"to the moon again?🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389262268","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389675564,"gmtCreate":1612774537358,"gmtModify":1703764800176,"author":{"id":"3565581649361282","authorId":"3565581649361282","name":"RogerLew","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/39451a8c1f91c27044d0e98cc2627e63","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3565581649361282","authorIdStr":"3565581649361282"},"htmlText":"Up up up","listText":"Up up up","text":"Up up up","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389675564","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389647474,"gmtCreate":1612773364698,"gmtModify":1703764789411,"author":{"id":"3574742283780360","authorId":"3574742283780360","name":"hkagoh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/801a785bada02e993de579994f192df7","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574742283780360","authorIdStr":"3574742283780360"},"htmlText":"lol","listText":"lol","text":"lol","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389647474","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389647917,"gmtCreate":1612773263339,"gmtModify":1703764788729,"author":{"id":"3571798867194715","authorId":"3571798867194715","name":"rofl","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a782efba8e9be0ccc6a4a3b55e7ec507","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3571798867194715","authorIdStr":"3571798867194715"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389647917","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389644466,"gmtCreate":1612773174355,"gmtModify":1703764788388,"author":{"id":"3575352038769618","authorId":"3575352038769618","name":"JulianAlson","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a4f9fadbfd2a54fe54a080c1732d41f9","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575352038769618","authorIdStr":"3575352038769618"},"htmlText":"Still going up?","listText":"Still going up?","text":"Still going up?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389644466","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389642927,"gmtCreate":1612772818769,"gmtModify":1703764784754,"author":{"id":"3554874130120728","authorId":"3554874130120728","name":"SureHeng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7b1e7ae51aa77b59acd3d3ec7b8f654d","vip":1,"crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3554874130120728","authorIdStr":"3554874130120728"},"htmlText":"[强]&nbsp;[强]&nbsp;","listText":"[强]&nbsp;[强]&nbsp;","text":"[强] [强]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389642927","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":389646197,"gmtCreate":1612772728819,"gmtModify":1703764783391,"author":{"id":"3570424148942091","authorId":"3570424148942091","name":"Fredwkh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/301d103aff8ff9955978aa630ee85588","vip":1,"crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3570424148942091","authorIdStr":"3570424148942091"},"htmlText":"Why am I not surprised! Anyone any comments for coins","listText":"Why am I not surprised! Anyone any comments for coins","text":"Why am I not surprised! Anyone any comments for coins","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389646197","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389643753,"gmtCreate":1612772228172,"gmtModify":1703764779468,"author":{"id":"3573097882054184","authorId":"3573097882054184","name":"zRui","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573097882054184","authorIdStr":"3573097882054184"},"htmlText":"👍🏻","listText":"👍🏻","text":"👍🏻","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389643753","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":389640555,"gmtCreate":1612771824577,"gmtModify":1703764777079,"author":{"id":"3552880858548101","authorId":"3552880858548101","name":"WhiteWizard","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3552880858548101","authorIdStr":"3552880858548101"},"htmlText":"[白眼]&nbsp;","listText":"[白眼]&nbsp;","text":"[白眼]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389640555","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":389654469,"gmtCreate":1612771507051,"gmtModify":1703764773838,"author":{"id":"3571372182898237","authorId":"3571372182898237","name":"Monke","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bd1d286cbe0997c19c0941f4b0ba3f71","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3571372182898237","authorIdStr":"3571372182898237"},"htmlText":"As long as theres money to be made/loss, people will follow. That’s capitalism. Nothing new. Anyway, like for likes and follow guys. [开心]&nbsp;","listText":"As long as theres money to be made/loss, people will follow. That’s capitalism. Nothing new. Anyway, like for likes and follow guys. [开心]&nbsp;","text":"As long as theres money to be made/loss, people will follow. That’s capitalism. Nothing new. Anyway, like for likes and follow guys. [开心]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389654469","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3515217,"gmtCreate":1612772057757,"gmtModify":1635765899688,"authorId":3565316298474628,"author":{"id":3565316298474628,"idStr":"3565316298474628","authorId":3565316298474628,"name":"DTWX","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c5f99179009d3c7731e1f4d01c3ca6c","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":389654469,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Agreed!","text":"Agreed!","html":"Agreed!"},{"id":3515460,"gmtCreate":1612775044069,"gmtModify":1635765894039,"authorId":3572130952613927,"author":{"id":3572130952613927,"idStr":"3572130952613927","authorId":3572130952613927,"name":"Cams","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7689382545474b210c95b234e9564df6","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":389654469,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"True","text":"True","html":"True"}],"langContent":"CN"},{"id":389652344,"gmtCreate":1612771102388,"gmtModify":1703764770426,"author":{"id":"3565004892423880","authorId":"3565004892423880","name":"Chimmy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eb71d738ca2f4da611b425823ebf3c60","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3565004892423880","authorIdStr":"3565004892423880"},"htmlText":"Nobody said it is new.Its not. It also happened to Volkswagon in thr past.This time its a big deal because small time retailers and banding together online (via Reddit WSB) to coordinate and buy in to try to take down the hedge funds and shorts","listText":"Nobody said it is new.Its not. It also happened to Volkswagon in thr past.This time its a big deal because small time retailers and banding together online (via Reddit WSB) to coordinate and buy in to try to take down the hedge funds and shorts","text":"Nobody said it is new.Its not. It also happened to Volkswagon in thr past.This time its a big deal because small time retailers and banding together online (via Reddit WSB) to coordinate and buy in to try to take down the hedge funds and shorts","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/389652344","repostId":1111770502,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111770502","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612770830,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111770502?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-08 15:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111770502","media":"Barrons","summary":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center","content":"<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.</p>\n<p>As with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.</p>\n<p>“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”</p>\n<p>The Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.</p>\n<p>“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.</p>\n<p>Born in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.</p>\n<p>That is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f015da71952a0d48096f6dc06fbe9a9e\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\"><span>Clarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress</span></p>\n<p>To fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according to<i>Barron’s</i>, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.</p>\n<p>Saunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’s<i>Clarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise &amp; Fall of a Memphis Maverick</i>.</p>\n<p>To counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.</p>\n<p>There was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”<i>Barron’s</i>wrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.</p>\n<p>To<i>Barron’s</i>, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.</p>\n<p>Yet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).</p>\n<p>That isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.</p>\n<p>Today, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.</p>\n<p>As for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, as<i>Barron’s</i>reported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.</p>\n<p>We’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title> The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n The GameStop Phenomenon Is Hardly New\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-08 15:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","GME":"游戏驿站",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-gamestop-phenomenon-is-hardly-new-heres-how-a-similar-squeeze-played-out-in-1923-51612361822?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111770502","content_text":"In 1923, the supermarket company—which still does businessin the South and Midwest—was at the center of a short squeeze/market morality play that echoes the recent frenzy around GameStop.\nAs with GameStop and other “meme” companies like AMC Entertainment, Piggly Wiggly was being sold short by several big Wall Street investment firms. This aroused an unexpected popular backlash, stirred by a resentment of “city slickers” getting rich off the “yaps,” or little guys. So there was a sense of triumph when investors fought back and put the squeeze on the shorts.\n“New York speculators,” crowed one newspaper, “made to pay through the nose.”\nThe Piggly Wiggly shorts got crushed, much asMelvin Capital dropped 53% in Januarychiefly on its GameStop downside bets, but that wasn’t the whole story. While there were some big winners, there were also some other big losers—none bigger than Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president, Clarence Saunders.\n“After working a sensational squeeze on Piggly Wiggly,”Barron’sreported at the time, “the Memphis grocer found that his ‘victory’ had cost him about $3,000,000 and control of his company.” It also tarnished Saunders’ legacy.\nBorn in 1881, Saunders worked his way out of poverty to become a retail pioneer,turning Piggly Wiggly (the origins of the name remain obscure) into the nation’s first “Self-Serving Store”in 1916.\nThat is, instead of giving shopping lists to clerks to fill—as was practice of the day—customers walked the aisles and chose their own goods. This sublimely simple concept caught on; by 1921 there were more than 600 Piggly Wiggly stores across the nation, and Saunders’ self-serve model is still the norm for supermarkets, fromKrogertoWalmart.\nClarence Saunders, Piggly Wiggly’s founder and president.Bain News Service/Library of Congress\nTo fuel continued expansion, Saunders in November 1922 announced plans to sell 100,000 new shares in the company. That, combined with unrelated news of a Piggly Wiggly licensee filing for bankruptcy, “caused heavy selling” in the stock, according toBarron’s, knocking the share price down to $30 from $45. Then Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms attempted a “bear raid,” shorting Piggly Wiggly stock in a bet it would fall further.\nSaunders cast the issue as good versus evil, asking potential investors, “Shall good business flee? Shall it tremble with fear? Shall it be the loot of the speculator?” as quoted in Mike Freeman’sClarence Saunders and the Founding of Piggly Wiggly: The Rise & Fall of a Memphis Maverick.\nTo counter the shorts, Saunders borrowed $10 million on margin from a number of investors and hatched a plan to buy up all outstanding shares of Piggly Wiggly, driving the price up. The stock reached $124 on March 20, 1923—when it was suspended by the New York Stock Exchange.\nThere was a “wild scramble by the shorts to cover,”Barron’swrote, yet there was less of that than had expected. The stock showed a “declining tendency” after the shorts had covered, and “the over-the-counter market for the stock gradually disappeared.” In the end, “Saunders and his associates” were left with “practically the entire issue of 200,000 shares on their hands—a large part of which had been accumulated at high prices” with “no market” to sell them.\nToBarron’s, Saunders had simply suffered “the customary fate of the Main Streeter who attempts to beat Wall Street.” Indeed, just three years earlier, a short-squeeze engineered by the owner of Stutz Motor Co. ended in bankruptcy for both.\nYet there were winners in Piggly Wiggly, too, such as the retired grocer from Providence, R.I., that Freeman writes about, who bought a thousand shares at $38 before the squeeze. Expecting to use the shares as dividend income, the retiree instead ended up selling them “from $96 to $124” and making a profit of almost $80,000 (around $1.2 million today).\nThat isn’t quite of the same magnitude as the gains made by Roaring Kitty, the GameStop investor whose initial $53,000 stake reached a value of at least $48 million. But the reality thatsome players will turn a handsome profit even as others are ruinedhasn’t changed over the years.\nToday, however, instead of one big investor like Saunders being left holding all the worthless shares, there may be many thousands of smaller investors facing financial strain or collapse.\nAs for Saunders, he went back to Tennessee, where “Memphis folk still have confidence” in him, asBarron’sreported at the time. But his various post–Piggle Wiggly ventures, includingKeedoozle automat-style stores, met with middling success. He died in 1953, his hopes of becoming the Henry Ford of supermarkets undone by an ill-fated decision to take on Wall Street.\nWe’ll see if GameStop investors fare any better.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":16,"commentSize":13,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}