Dumb Money Misses the Point About Its Meme-Stock Underdogs
The film dramatizes the pandemic-era mania around GameStop and WallStreetBets, but misunderstands the realities of financial markets.

Remember "stonks"? Remember "hodl"? Remember "to the moon"? Remember a strange man with long hair, a red headband, and ironic cat T-shirts speaking into his webcam about the stock market to members of the House Financial Services Committee in Congress? If you are somehow nostalgic for the time in which these words and characters entered our national lexicon, then Dumb Money might be the movie for you.
Dumb Money plays out during the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many Americans were shut indoors and much of the world seemed to have simply emptied out. Instead of partaking in large communal gatherings, people interacted online, on Zoom, and social media—and when they did venture into populated places, they wore masks that made it exceptionally annoying and difficult to communicate with others. Dumb Money is at its best as a low-key pandemic period piece, capturing the quiet, lonely oddness and anxiety of this era. While it is not the film's primary point, it works best as a story about one of the many collective manias that took hold during this period.
Specifically, it tells the mostly true story of the collective furor around the Reddit forum WallStreetBets and a handful of stock picks, most notably the mall-based video game retailer GameStop, which became known as "meme stocks" thanks to its popularity with small-time retail investors who frequented crass, meme-heavy message boards.
Much of this activity was driven by Keith Gill, a small-time investor with a penchant for cat imagery who went by the online alias Roaring Kitty. Thanks in part to Gill's videos promoting the stock, GameStop's share price rocketed upwards. As a result, Gill and others who bought in early quickly saw the value of their stocks increase massively—at least on paper. Moreover, as these small-time investors saw their holdings increase in value, large funds that had shorted GameStop—effectively betting that it would drop in value or fail—lost money. As losses mounted, one large fund, Melvin Capital, eventually had to shut down.
Dumb Money tries to present this as a relatively straightforward David and Goliath story, an underdog tale about little-guy investors who stick it to moneyed institutional investors. A final title card argues that because of Gill and the GameStop stock drama, big Wall Street firms must now pay attention to "dumb money"—the derogatory term large investment firms use to dismiss small individual investors they see as less savvy. Like The Big Short before it, the oft-expository movie wades through the jargon and systematic complexity of the financial market: There are explainer-y bits on short squeezes and references to "payment for order flow," a business model employed by Robinhood, the trading app that powered much of the GameStop frenzy. Yet as knotty as all these market mechanisms might seem, Dumb Money tells an essentially simplistic story about how the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the little guy.
And the problem is that the real story is anything but simplistic. Fundamentally, the big-money short sellers the movie presents as villains were right about GameStop: It's a troubled company on the decline. Not only was it hit hard by the pandemic, which decimated in-person, mall-based retail, but it's been beset by management and leadership problems, and its business model is under external threat from the rise in digital video game downloads. The big firms shorting GameStop were obviously trying to make money. They were also providing meaningful market information about the company's likely chances.
Meanwhile, the movie's hero, Keith Gill, pushed the stock onto less-savvy individual investors, many of whom ended up losing money in the end. Although we don't know exactly what has happened to Gill since 2021 as he has receded from public life, when we last heard from him, the value of his GameStop stocks had risen to tens of millions of dollars.
The point is not really that Gill is a villain—he was playing the markets just as everyone else was, and he appears to have come out as a winner. But many of the little guys who participated in what the movie casts as his revolution lost money in the process, betting on a company that remains on shaky ground.
Dumb Money does not entirely shy away from showing those losses; along with Gill, the film follows a handful of fictionalized GameStop investors, including Jennifer, a nurse played by America Ferrara, who becomes obsessed with Gill and GameStop stock, buys in big, and ends up losing money after failing to sell at the top. But it indulges in an unconvincing heroes-and-villains triumphalism that reality simply doesn't support.
Moreover, the film resolves in a strange showdown, in which the major players in the GameStop finance farce all have to testify before the House Financial Services committee. Here we see Democratic lawmakers portrayed as reformers fighting for the little guy. It's worth recalling, however, that at the time, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, possibly the Democratic party's most prominent policy entrepreneur, was calling for federal regulators to step in to shut down the meme-stock maniacs this movie lionizes. Meanwhile, as a title card notes, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the GameStop episode and took no action against the big firms involved. Nor is it obvious what sort of regulatory intervention would even theoretically be warranted.
The real story of Dumb Money is not that the little guys toppled the big guys, or that the big guys tried to rig the system and heroic federal lawmakers took them down a peg. It's that a bunch of stocks-obsessed weirdos on an internet forum found what amounts to an exploitable loophole in the financial system that would allow them to do something they saw as both epic and funny: wreck the balance sheet of a very large investment firm by buying a nostalgia stock associated with video games. Many of them did it for money, and a few lucky investors even won big. But many of them did it, well, for the lulz—for sheer chaotic amusement, because chaos is often funny, and because in the dreary depths of the pandemic, you had to do something to pass the time. Dumb Money is a nicely made, often human, and affecting movie, especially if you don't know too much about the real-life events it's based on.
But it largely misses the mischievous prankster's sensibility that drove much of the GameStop frenzy, recasting it into something more noble. It's not a bad movie, exactly, but it's too earnest, too in thrall to a simplistic moral worldview. This is a story about stonks, vulgar memes, and bizarre cat videos as much as it's one about financial system intricacies; frankly, it could have used a lot more lulz.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Remember "hlod"?"
Boomer detected. Its HODL
I'm Gen X and I didn't know what either meant. What does that make me?
Apathetic, duh.
But if you are going to try and play on that nostalgia, you should get it right. Imagine saying, "Remember ET and his Skittles?" It not only fails to make the point you want, but outs you as someone who knows much less about the subject than you think.
And again, in the first paragraph we see more terrible editing.
It’s just a blog to read over coffee
/mike
highlight of Drew Barrymore's career
“Imagine saying, “Remember ET and his Skittles?” It not only fails to make the point you want, but outs you as someone who knows much less about the subject than you think.”
Exactly this. “Remember HLOD” is what I would assume one of my older colleagues at work would reference if they were typing out what they remember reading on a CNN/WSJ article at the time with literally no other knowledge
Like when my aunt would say “you know, those shirts the kids like, ambercrombie, or holster, or lacosto”
Edit; looks like he fixed it
HODL was what the original Bitcoin bros told each other, and it made them rich, if they did in fact hold. But everyone should have known it was time to get out when Matt Damon and Tom Brady started pumping crypto. "Fortune favors the bold..." Damon said, but the bold had bought in years earlier.
HODLing is way easy when you’re 60% down on crypto like I am.
HODL was originally a misspelling of Hold, like "I'm going to hodl Bitcoin". But then people started using it legitimately.
This?
Recall the line, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Some big firms didn't so recall.
The real story of Dumb Money is not that the little guys toppled the big guys, or that the big guys tried to rig the system and heroic federal lawmakers took them down a peg. It’s that a bunch of stocks-obsessed weirdos on an internet forum found what amounts to an exploitable loophole in the financial system that would allow them to do something they saw as both epic and funny: wreck the balance sheet of a very large investment firm by buying a nostalgia stock associated with video games.
It’s important to remember that these “lulz” memesters got the New York Stock exchange to suspend trading on the stock, at the behest of the institutional investors who were *checks article* providing meaningful information about the company’s likely chances– in addition, Robinhood, the ‘free’ trading app that makes money selling your order flow to those very same institutional investors also stopped processing orders– remember folks, when a silicon valley company offers you their product for free, you’re not a customer, YOU’RE the product.
Whether or not this movie is any good, that was the story of the Gamestop fiasco. That institutional investors can shut down trading if prices don’t go their way. Despite how much “meaningful information” they’re providing to the market.
The institutional investors decided that the “price” of gamestop was wrong… so it’s time for the wisdom of the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse to be resurrected:
Price, it’s not what you say it is, it’s what the market will bear.
"Whether or not this movie is any good, that was the story of the Gamestop fiasco. "
Correct. The two highlights were basically "the people" banning together to say F*you to big money on wallstreet causing a short squeeze, and wallstreet/tech showing taking down the mask and confirming that it is in fact a rigged market to stop said short squeeze through cheating.
I think this is incorrect. I spent a lot of time on the forums in 2020, and this was the lie these people were telling themselves to put some polish on their greed. They wanted to get millions. They were justifiably angry that rich institutions had extra safeguards that the little guy doesn't get. But above all they were hoping to make it rich, and the David v Goliath story was a way for them to think themselves virtuous in the process.
"I think this is incorrect. I spent a lot of time on the forums in 2020, and this was the lie these people were telling themselves to put some polish on their greed. They wanted to get millions."
I mean, obviously yes. There were elements of both things, with the primary element being a get rich quick gamble.
There were a great many examples of normies and online personalities, influencers, youtube channels etc that were jumping in as a "Gamestop is my childhood, and fuck you for trying to bury them" but the main motivation of people throwing many thousands (or 100,000s) into it was a gamble that amounted to what is essentially pump-chasing. It was probably the most famous recent pump chase. But there was definitely an element of "fuck the hedgies" underlying
Yep. That is the important story.
There's one last thing to say about this:
Huge, mega hedge-fund managers with billions of dollars were short-selling gamestop. They were providing "meaningful information to the market".
Thousands-- or tens of thousands of small-time Reddit stock traders collectively joined together "long-sell" gamestop... were they providing "meaningful information to the market"?
The answer is "yes". However, the New York Stock exchange and Robinhood said, "No."
Everyone agreed to disagree, and trading was halted.
Let's note that the short sellers were not just providing "meaningful information to the market." They were using their institutional buying power to manipulate that market. At the start of the short squeeze, institutional investors had sold 140% more shares short than were in circulation at the time. This level of demand manipulation was pushing the stock's price down more than a strict focus on fundamental valuation. It is designed to starve a company of capital, which hastens a company's financial deterioration- basically making a short sale become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't have a moral stance against short selling. But the idea that these people were "right" about their "market information" is like the Mob Boss being "right" about the success of your corner store in his turf. Sure, there is some element of prediction involved, but he enjoys significant influence over that outcome.
The memesters certainly weren't providing useful information. They were trying to pump and dump, the oldest tactic in the book.
The dude who started GME had been betting on it for over a year. He had not been doing any pump and dump.
That said, yes- a lot of more sophisticated people were popping into the forums and performing a significant amount of pump and dump.
Worth noting that, nominally, in the micro/macroeconomic paradigm, the customers are the primary "meaningful information conveyors" as well.
The stock market is a controlled market, not a free market. If it were truly free, few people would invest in it, because shit like this would be the norm, not the exception.
Just don't confuse it with a free market, and it works more or less as intended.
There's no real reason why shorting GME wasn't the rational move, the company's business model was (and still is) circling the drain, and what would seem to be their best available "pivot" (other than completely reorganizing and going to a new sector entirely) would be to become a newer and (likely) worse version of Steam, who maybe also sold console hardware either on an amazon-type model or drop-shipping from manufacturers.
The short squeeze hurt a lot of institutional funds, but if those big-money pools covered their shorts on the way up and then found some way to put them back on at 300-400 (only the truly dumb money would be willing to loan shares at those prices and there's no bet/deal if nobody will take the other side of an offer), they're now way ahead of where they were if they shorted at 45 and rode down to 25.
I smiled when reading:
"~large funds that had shorted GameStop—effectively betting that it would drop in value or fail—lost money. As losses mounted, one large fund, Melvin Capital, eventually had to shut down. "
Probably shouldn't have but something about rooting for the underdog here.
"Eat the Rich: The Gamestop Saga" series on Netflix is better done, much more informative, and more entertaining.
>>As losses mounted, one large fund, Melvin Capital, eventually had to shut down.
it was fucking beautiful.
I wonder if the movie about the GameStop Rebellion is as careful to avoid calling it the GameStop Rebellion as this review is?
"Fundamentally, the big-money short sellers the movie presents as villains were right about GameStop: It's a troubled company on the decline."
Fundamentally, Suderman doesn't know what he is talking about.
In 2020, when Gill started buying this stock, the market cap of GME was $250 Million. It is now $5.2 Billion - after years of churn and constant integration of information, those short sellers were wrong. Horribly wrong. Their valuation of the company was wrong.
Gill had a basic hypothesis: that GameStop was undervalued. Not mentioned in Suderman's article was that Gill had been following this stock for over a year, and Gill legitimately felt that GameStop's intangible assets (including customer database, goodwill, and business relationships) positioned them for value creation. He didn't believe it was a $300 stock, but he did believe that the Short Sellers were wrong.
On the other hand, we had Short Sellers who were borrowing and trading short-sold stocks in higher volumes than were actually available on the market. At the height of this process, there was 140% more short-sold shares than actual shares available on the market- they were creating more selling demand (and the downward price pressure this creates) than there were actual shares available to sell. Yes, a kernel of truth about the company's financial straights existed, but short sellers were using their institutional clout to leverage that doubt into further downward action on the stock.
For all the sneering about dumb money (and there was plenty of dumb money), Gill was right. The company is worth more than the short sellers anticipated, by the only metric that matters: what people were willing to pay for it.
the only metric that matters: what people were willing to pay for it.
Only in the same sense that Zimbabwe dollars (the ones with all the zeroes) are getting more valuable as of late: as collector's items.
The company is still continuing to bleed cash. The company continues to exist as a zombie only to sell shares of stock to people who want it for the meme at this point. The actual business of its brick and mortar stores selling video games (or more recently, nothing but funko pops) is deader than RadioShack. Sooner or later it will do what it was always going to do: go the way of Toys R Us and become a seasonal pop-up branding opportunity of another retailer.
The brokers were right to halt trading. That's standard protocol anytime they sense a heady frenzy, because frenzies are how you get crashes and the market is still (rightfully) living with PTSD from 1929. Am I saying GameStop would have caused a crash that big? Probably not, but consider what would have happened if, right in the middle of that frenzy, GameStop actually did go under, the stock value went to $0, and suddenly millions of retail investors who poured
their life savingsunreasonable amounts of cash into it were suddenly broke. The very first thing that would happen is the SEC would come asking RobinHood how it allowed that to happen. You might say "well, GameStop wasn't going to fail" and we know that now in hindsight, but in the moment, no one really did. A whole lot of people came frightfully close to losing their shirts.The only people going to lose their shirts over the issue till Robinhood bailed them out were a bunch of assholes who decided that they would try and get a bunch of free money by purposefully short selling more shares of Gamestop than existed till it was forced into bankruptcy.
"Only in the same sense that Zimbabwe dollars (the ones with all the zeroes) are getting more valuable as of late: as collector’s items."
I think you will need to spend a little more time explaining how government-inflated fiat currency is any way the "same sense" as GME.
"The company is still continuing to bleed cash. "
Please: go look at their 10k. They are not bleeding cash.
Compared to 2020, they have reduced debt-load by over half (.6B v 1.2B). They have over 2x the working capital- almost a billion dollars. They went from a capital:debt ratio of 1:3 to 2:1. They are cash-flow positive (negative income due to re-investment).
I do not believe GME is a great investment. But no one is merely buying it for "collector" value. There is a hypothesis that the company is positioned to pivot. In 2020 I'd have laughed at that likelihood. But today, they certainly have the cash to do it (I don't think they have the leadership to do so). The current valuation is based on MORE people believing this hypothesis than did in 2020. Are many of these people dumb money with irrational exuberance? Yes. Absolutely. But we see that the people who felt this was a $250MM company were also irrational.
I kind of saw the WallStreetBets crowd as fraudsters, pumping the stocks of mismanaged or outdated companies on the gullible, and then getting out before the Empire struck back. A case could even be made for collusion.
I get the basic anti-fiat/central banking mythos behind crypto, and even think it might come true at some point. Though probably in a way anyone would predict.
I never really understood the GameStop thing. Other than as a pyramidic joke at the expense of hedge funder types.
It did cause a clear signal that ye old money interests would get protection from it, however.. .
Is the case for crypto really "anti-fiat", or is it more like meta-fiat?
Seem like the argument for believing that a particular blockchain "address" has some inherent value because it's unique (as long as some particular piece of software is running somewhere) could be equally applied to snowflakes (as long as it stays below freezing), and the case for its value is just that "everyone" agrees to believe that value applies; but that doesn't seem to be different than the argument for fiat currency which also holds value mainly because everyone agrees to believe it.
Like crypto currency, fiat currency gets its value from scarcity + belief. Unlike crypto, the scarcity of fiat currency is controlled by the issuing government, which can easily destroy the value by issuing more - and are often stupid enough to do so. The only way I know of to similarly destroy crypto would be to develop quantum cryptography that actually works on long bit strings and out of the lab.
I don't get this. This was for, like, 3 months in 2020. You people act like you live in some sort of statist hellhole where they forced you to get vaccinated and stay inside or go to jail.
You young-uns didn't have to live through the "Great Repression", so your hindsight views of that period are obviously completely uninformed.
/s
Wallstreet is corrupt af; letting people play stupid games with money they don’t actually have, and protecting its favorite in-group stooges when things go sideways.
If it was the other way around, and all the plebs lost money over stupidity while the big money got even more rich … they would leave the plebs high and dry with a patronizing, sarcastic, “never bet what you can’t afford to lose”.
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> https://workscoin1.pages.dev/