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

421–430 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#421

Post by [deleted] »

TameAntelope wrote: post #372
Miner49er wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limitations were as a result of Robinhood et. al. being unable to cover the risks involved in providing instant trading capabilities for a stock as volatile as the ones that got restricted. Yes RH had to cover more, because the clearinghouse was also starting to be stretched by the risk from the violatility. If the hedge funds go down, the clearinghouse wouldn't have been able to front their cash, and they would've…

> short (hedge fund) side. The claim that "the hedge funds" operate in unison and/or are all short is probably the largest misconception about this whole situation. Very "us vs. them" and also very wrong.

[deleted]

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#422

Post by renewiltord »

iamacyborg wrote: post #177
josephorjoe wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you should read about how that was dealt with in July 2017.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#423

Post by at-fates-hands »

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"…

I have to admit, this wasn't me to a tee, but I did initially believe manipulation of any kind - whether you do so to push the price up or down is illegal. My basis for this was from several friends who have been financial planners for 10+ years and two have lived off day trading for more than 15 years.

Then I had a few people tell me, "Nope, its called a "short squeeze" and totally legal. Then I had to go back and do some research on how short squeezes work. Then I found several instances where this had happened, just not nearly as public because of social media.

The small amount of research opened my eyes to the fact even though something may seem illegal, in the finance world, there's a lot of gray areas and details most people will never know about until something like this happens.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#424

Post by ComputerGuru »

kgwgk wrote: post #19

"Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities." If GameStop management was thinking of selling some shares to the public (or directly to those who really need shares to cover their shorts) at some crazy price they'll have to be careful. AMC was lucky to have a lot of convertible debt outstanding which has been converted without…

American Airlines announced their intention to do just that yesterday. I wonder what the SEC will have to say about it.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#425

Post by Tenoke »

nemo44x wrote: post #392
Tenoke wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw plenty of smart people ahead of institutions and real doctors on masks and to some extents other aspects of the pandemic. Yes, in general if you don't know much on a topic you'd on average do best if you listen to the experts but you can outperform that if you can identify the right kind of smart people with a good track record.

"Right kind of people" have no accountability to their advice. A doctor can't really just hazard a guess without actual facts to base them in or risk losing their ability to practice and/or reputation. "Right kind of people" can be and are often plenty wrong about things but it fades into obscurity and they are never held accountable. Of course they are right sometimes but on many issues with a binary choice (should…

>A doctor can't really just hazard a guess without actual facts to base them in or risk losing their ability to practice and/or reputation.

No, but one doctor might base advice on one study he saw another on a different one. Having skin in the game helps but it is also well documented that doctors might be overly cautious due to risk of litigation and thus sometimes chose suboptimal courses of action.

>Of course they are right sometimes but on many issues with a binary choice (should or shouldn't wear masks) that's a 50% chance.

No, this isn't a real coinflip. There's evidence for and against things like this, and some people have learned better than others how to evaluate such evidence and can definitely do better than 50%.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#426

Post by twblalock »

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"…

The flood of articles about this topic hitting the front page, and the flood of comments on those articles full of conspiratorial thinking, have been surprising.

Even during the election, the controversy following the election, and the Capitol riot, the front page didn't get taken over by a flood of articles. Something is different this time. It was not good. I hope it won't happen again.

The moderators on this site do great work, and I'm sure this caught them by surprise and they did their best. I hope a controversy like the one that happened with WSB and Robin Hood in the past few days will not be able to take over this site to such an extent again.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#427

Post by FireBeyond »

dkrich wrote: post #356
dalbasal wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Subtleties. I disagree. I think a big part of why this whole thing is fascinating is the depth. Yesterday morning, financial press were blathering generalities pinning WSB as market manipulators and calling for regulation to stop them. That is, stop retail investors trading at a scale that moves markets. IE, the stuff that insiders get away with regularly. Between yesterday afternoon and now, millions of people h…

Yesterday premarket when Robinhood announced the cessation of trading in these ultra volatile stocks, was there a deep analysis of what led them to that decision? A measured consideration of why they might do that? Of course not. Immediately a false narrative was created that citadel forced them to do it under threat that they would stop their order flow. Had any politician or public figure merely suggested we let th…

> Just look at how Steve Cohen, Lee Cooperman and John Fortt were shamed for raising what I believed to be perfectly legitimate questions.

Leon got shamed not for his commentary on the speculation around the stock, but for the complete failure-to-read-the-room commentary on his taxes, commenting on marginal tax rates and "fair shares" as "bullshit":

> "This fair share is a bullshit concept. It’s just a way of attacking wealthy people, and I think it’s inappropriate," Cooperman said Thursday. “We’ve all got to work together and pull together.”

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#428

Post by nrmitchi »

BoorishBears wrote: post #238
nrmitchi wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... what? My comment is literally saying hedge funds (like Citadel...) are profiting off this.

You're right, I misread. My apologies.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#429

Post by jeffbee »

jaywalk wrote: post #292
Rapzid wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting.. WSB was 100% orchestrating a short squeeze. They were telling anyone who would listen and in fact using it to rationalize what they were doing..

scheme (verb): make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong. Discussing buying stock on a public forum is certainly not devious, and although the goal is to cause short positions to lose a bunch of money I would argue that it's neither illegal nor wrong.

You could argue that but you’d be clearly wrong on American law and jurisprudence. If the goal is to cause other market participants to lose, that it specifically against the letter of the law.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#430

Post by whimsicalism »

hatsunearu wrote: post #168
zaphod4prez wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

There was a CNBC post about Citron and Melvin closing shorts but it was retracted.

No, it wasn't. Melvin has definitely closed, although Citron may still be in partially.

Why are so many people repeating the same misleading talking points over and over?

Post reply on HN