Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#471

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

throwaway-571 wrote: post #302

sosuke wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When hindsight points out the opportunities that you overlooked which would have giving you that comfortable life it infects all future decision making.

Is there a spoiler tag on HN ? These ones still hurt: There is a lot of thing one could have done "for the LULz" but decided to browse HN, Imgur or Reddit instead. - Bitcoin. I heard about it when it was still possible to mint it on CPU, but chose to run SETI@Home instead. - Bitcoin when it was at merely $9000. - Ethereum when it was going under $1. - Dogecoin like anytime before yesterday (up 6x or something today).…

The key to managing this FOMO for me is really committing emotionally to the concept of hindsight bias.

We remember the winners we missed way more than the losers, because the winners are still present in our lives today, whereas the losers never became noteworthy (because they lost).

But it’s extremely difficult to tell them apart ahead of time. So current me needs to give past me a pass... past me failed at something that is very difficult; no shame in that. Wistful regret, maybe, in a “what if...” kind of way, but I think everyone has those in their life, and not just about money.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#472

Post by unicornmama » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

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.

Who do you think is selling GME shares to retail investors for dollars on the penny?

This whole thing is disgusting. Once the euphoria had subsided, people will realize that the hedge funds have come out as bandits, having traded nickles for dollar bills.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#473

Post by dalbasal » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

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…

Of course mid-sprint reporting is all over the place. That said, so has the financial press and insiders. In fact, during an interview of NASDAQ's CEO, the suggestion was floated that this is the Russians or something. That rumour was dropped by professional journalists and insiders. In fact, the regular, non financial press had a far more curious response than the financial press... they even read reddit.

Going back to "Citadel rumour.." It certainly was off the cuff and certainly doesn't encompasse everything. That said, RH is financially dependant on Citadel and Citadel is in a position to benefit from RH's decision.

Whatever you think of Cuban, these people are being drawn in for the same reason you and I are talking about it. It's saucy.

I think your "vilification of naysayers" point is off-mark. This is not about whether or not GME bets make money. The whole saga is a naysaying of sorts. Naysaying to the rigging.

I suspect I'm probably on the same side as you regarding the larger point. Speculation, HFT, etc are negatives to be curtailed not expanded. But, the "me but not thee" way that financial markets have been structured is an outrage.

The "revenge for 08'" stuff is symbolic. But, the symbolism is fairly subtle. The firms being protected from long tail risk (right, wrongly or even essentially are, again, being shielded from long term risk on bets only they have access to. This includes clearing houses and market makers. The "systemic risk" is the risk that these guys lose money. Stability is premised on them not losing money.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#474

Post by f430 » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

SirSavary wrote: post #287

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"…

Seems like you struck a nerve. I'm impressed by how many people are replying to this, quoting your points, and then talking about those points as if they were addressed directly at them. When did HN become overrun by narcissists?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25954606

One really good example in that link is a user trying to claim that race & iq is the determining factor in economic outcome while dropping racial slurs as examples to justify racism against Asians and other groups that he thinks are ALL "wealthy" and "smart".

It's a great illustration of parent's comment. Taking an outdated model and then using it to justify his/her own skewed views. Sort of like how we use colour labels created by a Swedish pseudoscientist to reduce ethnicities to is being heralded as a great achievement.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#475

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #379

oramit wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Facebook feed is filled with people talking about this. These are friends I have know for years who have never mentioned stocks before but now are talking about "holding the line". It is FOMO for sure, but the real emotions I get from talking with people are outrage and revenge. Everyone feels like the system (economic and political) is rigged against the public. The dopamine hit from sticking it to the man is pal…

That would be useful if they were actually sticking it to the man. But that isn't what's happening here. What's happening is a big bubble where most of these regular people are gonna lose lots of money while the hedge funds end up closing out their position for a manageable loss and come out just fine.

... not to mention the few smarter hedge funds and mutual funds that quickly jumped in an out of this and made substantial gains, leaving everyone who thinks they are "holding the line" even more "on the line".

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#476

Post by vga805 » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

floor2 wrote: post #467

adriancr wrote: post #139

A few rants that i tried answering to someone before him removing post. Free speech is allowed. Prosecuting people for free speech is impossible. A bunch of imbeciles posting on forums is similar to a bunch of imbeciles on CNBC arguing that price is too high. A hedge fund with 12 billion dollars shorting 140% of a stock and then using media to drive price to 0 is illegal. Also more then idiotic since they caused the…

Essentially none of what is written in your "rants" is factually accurate, unless by calling it out you meant to make clear that these were emotional ramblings unrelated to reality. Neutral analysts on CNBC providing commentary is pretty different than someone with a financial stake trying to pump up a stock they own to maximize their profit. There is no evidence that any of the major funds involved in shorting have…

"Neutral analysts on CNBC providing commentary"

lol. okay.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#477

Post by ZephyrBlu » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #323

klodolph wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I will say that I’m not too busy for this at the moment, and getting to my very basic level of understanding has required me to sort through, at the very least, a fairly decent chunk of reference material and reading interpretations and explanatio…

Whenever I read about a topic that I don't know much about, part of me is always wondering if the writer is throwing all these exotic words and greek letters in there because they are really an essential to understanding the topic, or because they just want to over-complicate it to sound smart and blow their own horn. On one hand we have Occam's Razor: "the simplest solution is almost always the best." On the other w…

Financial markets and derivatives are just complicated.

There seem to be a lot of moving parts, and a lot of possible outcomes.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#478

Post by rich_sasha » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #36

rich_sasha wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a distance, this is all a storm in a teacup. It's a small handful of stocks, and every single one in S&P500 is waaaay bigger, in terms of trading volumes and market cap. Anything can happen, but in finance terms, this is tiny so far.

If that's the case I'm kinda confused why trading platforms keep banning trades in these particular meme stocks?

What's small for the whole market isn't necessarily small for Robin Hood.

It's not out of the question that Robin Hood could go under as a result of these shenanigans. Just very unlikely that would trigger any serious fallout downwind.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#479

Post by interestica » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

jasonjayr wrote: post #48

SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity Specifically calls out retail investors (i.e. WSB). I read it the opposite way, but I can see how it could be interpreted as a warning to both.

It boils down where and who did the manipulation? 140% shorts, including naked shorts from Melvin? RH stopping buys but allowing sells? Conclusive proof that Citidel put their finger on the scales to force RH's actions? WSB's members constantly chanting hold/diamond hands/ride to the moon? There's a lot at play, and further examination will make for a good post mortem...

There's a weird aspect of meme-as-protection. It's hard for a regulating entity to cite memes and seemingly offensive speech.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#480

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #400

kd0amg wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.

The other issue is that it tends to be underspecified whether a discussion is about law or policy. Someone comes in and describes from first principles what a reasonable system would look like, and then someone else haughtily chastises them because that isn't how the existing system works. But if you read it as they intended it, i.e. as a policy proposal rather than a legal opinion, then the fact that it isn't the ex…

On the other hand, many people who reason from first principles fall into two fallacies:

First, they believe that their system is how the world should work, and therefore how it would work if only someone, somewhere, weren't interfering. The result is conspiracy theories.

Second, they have not fully thought out the consequences, or don't care about them, and dismiss the historical consequences of similar systems in the past. Reasoning with people who ignore evidence in favor of their theorizing is difficult.