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

171–180 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#171

Post by hatsunearu »

jancsika wrote: post #121

A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…

And then there's another guy writing smug 8-point steps! Truly the pinnacle of hacker news culture.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#172

Post by jeffbee »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #163
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!

May be for some of them. People invest for all sorts of reasons besides the "fundamentals", you know. Tell me: what do you think Melvin's intentions were for shorting a dying company's stock for several billion?

To raise cash? Shorting a company in terminal decline, but that will never die and will live on the pink sheets forever, is a great way to take a gain without ever having to pay the taxes.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#173

Post by [deleted] »

pardonmesir wrote: post #145
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.

what are you talking about? the real fraud and market manipulation was perpetrated by Robinhood and Shitadel when they shut peoples’ ability to buy the stock while still allowing it to be sold. They know this is illegal but they were betting on the fines being less than the losses. They need to be taught a real lesson. Those responsible for this intentional, flagrant violation of the most basic free market principles…

[deleted]

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#174

Post by gdubs »

A lot of cynical takes here, projecting the worst intentions of the government.

To me this seems:

A) remarkably hands-off, patient. “The market seems to be working.”

B) A reminder to newbies that there ARE laws, so don’t be stupid as your investing journey continues.

C) If anyone should be on the edge of their seats it’s regulated entities who may have manipulated markets by putting their thumb on the scales.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#175

Post by hehehaha »

dls2016 wrote: post #11

What are the odds of a flash crash in the next week as a result of this activity? The system of banks and market makers and clearing houses is a always way more coupled than the the owners let on... history shows they don't know how to risk manage these sorts of situations.

Zero. They actually learned their lessons from the past decade and have guard rails in place.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#176

Post by TheAdamist »

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.

crowd sourcing / gig working a pump n dump instead of running a boiler room operation.

Just add gig work to anything and rules no longer apply.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#177

Post by iamacyborg »

josephorjoe wrote: post #144
malwarebytess wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whatever else happens, Robinhood should not survive this. They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their customers should leave them. And I will be completely unsurprised if when the dust settles it turns out they acted illegally. Also, they suck at lying.

You may want to check what happened to certain brokers on Jan 15th 2015 before you start chucking accusations out. It’s clear you don’t understand how these brokers work and how they interface with the broader market.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#178

Post by AcerbicZero »

The map isn't supposed to be the terrain; Generating wealth isn't the same as generating money, and the stock market seems to exist almost entirely for the latter, at the cost of the former.

We're in a situation where playing in the market is a better strategy than using the market for its legacy purposes (you know, buying partial ownership in companies) and the number of financial tools created specifically to exploit the ability of wealth to generate additional wealth vastly out match everything else.

Anyway I've got paperhands and bailed on my positions days ago by following some old WSB advice that's actually worth while - "take your profits when you want to"

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#179

Post by JW_00000 »

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

Which ones? Citadel/Melvin/Citron (is this all the same one?) and which others?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#180

Post by ycombigator »

dleslie wrote: post #116
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.

Many just want to screw the hedge funds, finally it's their blood in the water.
Post reply on HN