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

151–160 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#151

Post by zaphod4prez »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #131
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…

> 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 this. Which part has little truth to it? The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) on Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported. Some of the "little guys" (reddit people) definitely were a part of the reason for that.

(Disclaimer I do NOT know what I'm talking about, just repeating what I saw on Twitter)

It seems like they've all closed their shorts already, most of them did on like day 2 I believe.

In addition, other hedge funds have been on the winning side of this trade. Some of the orders for GME last few days have been absolutely massive, not coming from retail.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#152

Post by nrmitchi »

BoorishBears wrote: post #127
dleslie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It boggles the mind people think hedge funds can't profit off a mad rush like this...

Why do you think "hedge funds" are not? The small ones that were caught in a bad position at the beginning? Sure, they probably didn't.

But most other funds, or trading desks, or market makers, or brokerages (etc) are most likely printing money right now.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#153

Post by sandworm101 »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #131
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…

> 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 this. Which part has little truth to it? The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) on Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported. Some of the "little guys" (reddit people) definitely were a part of the reason for that.

>> The big hedge funds are apparently losing money

Some are losing money. But that is nothing new. Hedge funds die every day ... on paper. But which brokerage houses are going under? Other hedge funds are doing fine, likely profiting on this. The fact that a few are held out as victims sounds, to me, like the other funds just stoking the panic. I don't see any non-paper houses closing over this. This is Gamestop, not the mortgage crisis.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#154

Post by xd1936 »

malwarebytess wrote: post #119
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.

They over a day to say that. Instead, they decided it was clearer to say "we're temporarily restricting trading due to volatility". If what you said really was the issue... Why not just say that? They're a startup. They'd be forgiven. Why hide behind vagueness?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#155

Post by germinalphrase »

BoorishBears wrote: post #127
dleslie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It boggles the mind people think hedge funds can't profit off a mad rush like this...

‘People’ don’t know what hedge funds do.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#156

Post by ordinaryradical »

acover wrote: post #85
ericmay wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is one take, certainly. But the problem is once you say that this is a market manipulation event you run into other issues. Is going on CNBC and talking about the strength of a company that you invested in market manipulation? Before this blew up you certainly had more reach. Is posting "research" or holding a conference call and telling people a company is garbage while you have the company shorted market mani…

If wallstreetbets was a hedge fund and they bought all of GME to cause a short squeeze then that is market manipulation - this has been settled [0]. [0] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-159 Edit: litigated to settled

If you actually read that link that case is so extraordinarily different than the reality of what’s happening today I don’t know how you can argue this in good faith.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#157

Post by RurouniK »

dialamac wrote: post #109
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.

Yeah that’s nice, so at least you can be involved in something where there is no doubt of large scale unfettered manipulation. I guess that certainty is a plus for some.

Do you have any proof of that large scale unfettered manipulation other than some random posts from salty boomers like yourself?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#158

Post by hogFeast »

ericmay wrote: post #62
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.

Which is one take, certainly. But the problem is once you say that this is a market manipulation event you run into other issues. Is going on CNBC and talking about the strength of a company that you invested in market manipulation? Before this blew up you certainly had more reach. Is posting "research" or holding a conference call and telling people a company is garbage while you have the company shorted market mani…

You realise that all of this stuff has specific rules. There are specific rules about posting research, there are specific rules about media (newspapers and TV), there are specific rules about algorithms (I will answer your questions: no, no, no, no...the last question is...odd, if you know about sure-win algos then you must be very rich).

And all of this stuff has happened before, it happened in 2000, lots of people went on bulletin boards, and some ended up going to jail for market manipulation. The difference between doing it publicly and privately is huge, that is a necessary component of market manipulation (generally speaking, market manipulation isn't very effective if you don't have anyone to baghold for you).

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#159

Post by briefcomment »

numair wrote: post #107

Okay kids, story time. After the crash of 2008, I spent some time working with Dick Fuld. Yes, the former head of Lehman Brothers. Yes, the one people describe as “disgraced,” among other terms. Here’s the irony, though — Dick was one of the only people I encountered at that level of business/finance who wasn’t a scumbag. Unlike so many virtue-signaling Silicon Valley darlings, the guy behind the curtain was an honor…

> "these supposed “adults in the room” who are so much smarter and better than the the “retail investors” are pretty much the same sort of immature, self-centered children as the other side. The difference is, they’ve got the regulators and the politicians in their pockets."

Absolutely.

Dick and Trump are examples of scapegoats. Throw someone under the bus publicly, so you can continue doing what you're doing while the public is busy staring at the spectacle.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#160

Post by iamacyborg »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #131
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…

> 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 this. Which part has little truth to it? The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) on Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported. Some of the "little guys" (reddit people) definitely were a part of the reason for that.

> The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) on Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported.

There are thousands of hedge funds, just because a handful have been caught with their trousers round their ankles doesn’t mean the others aren’t profiting from current volatility.

Post reply on HN