Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#111

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

qmmmur wrote: post #77
jeffbee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be? It's an open, publicly-documented market manipulation event. How can there be any question about it? You might decide that this kind of manipulation is OK due to it's stated goals, but that doesn't make it not manipulation.

People are free to purchase stock how they want to. If those people collect together and discuss potentially profitable strategies for trading who is to stop them? Do you think its possible youve fallen ill to the rhetoric that this is bad purely because the rich people didn't get their way?

I have a general, all-purpose opposition to financial trading that’s about exploiting weird market structure tricks to screw people over rather than expressing beliefs about the value of the underlying things being traded. Institutional traders too often get away with doing that kind of thing, and I’m hardly losing sleep over the particular targets of this campaign, but we can’t let the takeaway here be “it’s fine as long as retail investors get to play too”.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#112

Post by jeffbee »

RHSeeger wrote: post #84
jeffbee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing: there is NO QUESTION as to the motives of the r/wsb traders. They are overtly conspiring to raise the price of shares in order to force specific parties to buy it. That's manipulation!

Is it illegal to corner the market on a product because you know someone else is going to need to buy it, so you can charge them a lot because they must buy from you? It seems like what is being done is pretty much this; just for a large definition of "you".

Yes, it is broadly illegal to corner or attempt to corner any market, and the law directs the CFTC to step in and and void commodities contracts or take whatever other actions it deems appropriate when it finds that a market has been destabilized. See 7 USC 12a(9).

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#113

Post by peteyPete »

Whatever pressure is needed to stop the masses from understanding the power they have when working together. Although GameStop is small fries in comparison to other larger stocks, if that many people are willing to get together to vote with their dollars, that should scare wallstreet. And sure, this is "organized" but how is this any different than analysts with large audiences making calls and directing a large number of investors in the direction they want? Or hedge funds publishing their shorts and masses reacting based on that, affecting the stock. The hypocrisy. If they're going to regulate the people to this extent, they better regulate and actually enforce the regulations on wallstreet. Can't just protect one side.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#114

Post by csomar »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #25

There's been some speculation that what WSB are doing could be market manipulation or otherwise illegal. The fact that this statement only mention retail investors in the context of protecting them makes me suspect that the SEC's not going for it.

It's harder to pursue this if there were hundreds of thousands involved. Maybe they'll go for the people who organized this, or the one who profited massively for it. But I don't see it possible to sue a million person.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#115

Post by bredren »

fartzzz wrote: post #91

"Our core market infrastructure has proven resilient under the weight of this week’s extraordinary trading volumes" Most of the retail investors couldn't buy specific stocks on most exchanges for some time (tastytrade, ib, rh etc). I wouldn't call that "resilient".

Not knowing how hard it is to provide the service fo their "core market infrastructure," I couldn't tell if it was just a self-complimentary way to boast or genuine technical feet.

Regardless, the prominence of the note was strange and set an immediate defensive tone.

What made it really odd was the arc of tone to "Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity." An elegant threat.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#116

Post by dleslie »

dkrich wrote: post #75

There’s a long history of similar occurrences that follow along a common line: whatever appears to support individual investors will be the path taken by politicians and regulatory bodies. Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is probably very little truth to…

The FOMO is palpable.

There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one and only chance at a comfortable life.

This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#117

Post by hhhar42 »

jeffbee wrote: post #71
gnfargbl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it is market manipulation, who do you think the SEC could realistically go after here?

Maybe one or two specific individuals, but you're right in general. That's the part that frightens me the most here. The tactics that are being used are equivalent to the ones used by sideshow street racers and political riots: if we get thousands of individuals to break the law at the same time and place then law enforcement will be ineffective.

You really need to stop accusing thousands of people of lawbreaking when several actual securities lawyers with backgrounds in actual manipulation litigation have said it isn’t as cut and dry as you think. Tying the activity to the riots and suggesting similar organization is also beyond the pale. You have cited neither of those positions throughout your ranting here and they’re harmful speculation.

Your commentary in this thread is over the top. I’d use a term you already have (edit: and deleted, looks like) which definitely applies, but I’m not stooping there, and you’re probably on your way to a flag for it anyway. I suggest you step back from HN for a few minutes, at least.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#118

Post by jeffbee »

lm28469 wrote: post #89
jeffbee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last giant crash was triggered by a single party (Bear Stearns) running out of credit. Do not underestimate the events that could follow if this volatility destabilizes a large market participant.

> The last giant crash was triggered by a single party (Bear Stearns) running out of credit. It was waaaaaay more complex than that, the Bear Stearns thing was one of many worldwide symptoms (not cause) of a widespread problem. There is nothing to compare between this GME event and 2008 crisis (even though there are plenty of other issues that could lead to one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–…

That is why I said it was triggered by, not caused by.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#119

Post by malwarebytess »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #3

"The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly inhibit their ability to trade certain securities. In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market participants should be careful to avoid such activity." This shoul…

Robinhood says that they basically couldn't fulfil the buy orders because they ran out of money, or couldn't fulfil the orders without breaking the rest of the platform. I imagine whatever the reason there's going to be lawsuits.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#120

Post by jdefr89 »

RurouniK wrote: post #37

Apparently when retail investors win it's "Manipulative trading activity"... I'm so glad Bitcoin and DeFi was invented in my lifetime and I can be protected by maths and computer science instead of a three letter agency.

Yea, unfortunately they isn't really the case right now as cash is still king and crypto is another gamble. Not to mention, who do you think could buy better hardware? Us or them?

There isn't really such thing as decentralized. Its just the authority gets shifted around but the same issues can still show up.

Post reply on HN