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

751–760 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#751

Post by hinkley »

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…

The problem with a conscience is that it gives you a tell, that others without one can use against you when they're in need of a scapegoat.

As someone once told me when I lamented that I don't talk to a certain person more often, they stopped me and pointed out that the phone system works in both directions. There are two people not talking to each other, not just me.

Dick participated, he could have blown the whistle, and he didn't, so he deserves a share of the guilt. He is not innocent. But if you didn't build the house of cards, then it's not your fault, it's the group's fault. If you colluded to remove people who would have said something, then you get more of a share of the blame. Anyone could have blown the whistle, not just you. Even if it's obvious that you are the most likely whistleblower, there could have been others. (And if you were the most obvious, you can't anonymously tip someone off because everyone will know it's you, so you're doubly screwed.)

One of the things slimeballs have intuited for millenia is that if you really believe something crazy, nobody is going to pick up that you're lying because you believe it. You've lied to yourself, and then fastidiously avoided looking at the lie so that you can maintain your innocence, and your profit stream. You're guilty as sin, with extra sins piled on top.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#752

Post by youkoulele »

adjkant wrote: post #707
youkoulele wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the SEC punish Robinhood for not having enough collateral to trade very volatile stocks.

IANAL but some possible reasons: 1. For lying about that reason to customers 2. for not shutting down all trading on their app (allowing sells of GME without manipulated the market, even if blocking sells would also have bad effects) 3. For allegedly tipping off Citadel before shutting off GME trading (unconfirmed but they will likely investigate this claim)

Yeah it's worth investigating if they are at fault somewhere.

But many people seem to think that the SEC will punish them simply because they stopped allowing people to buy more GME.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#753

Post by Aunche »

mike00632 wrote: post #747
Aunche wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We let big players partake in risky things like shorting GME above 100% float because we don't care if they lose. It's the same reason we allow them to invest in companies like Theranos. They know the risks they were getting into and will still be fine without a extra 0 in their bank account. Regular followers of WSB are aware of the risks as well, so I'm fine with them attempting a short squeeze. The problem is that…

Except hedgefunds only trade money from accredited investors, i.e. people who can afford to lose a lot of money. They also typically aren't swayed by TikTok videos and short explainers of how shorts work designed to hype up GSE. The point is that Robinhood investors are being exploited.

Can you explain how you're disagreeing with me?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#754

Post by grahamburger »

cactus2093 wrote: post #647
mcguire wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" how a lot of doctors viewed masks at the beginning of the pandemic " Ok, so I've looked into the history of this a little, and most of the mask mythology seems misunderstood. Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. About late March, it began to appear that th…

Do you have sources for your claims? I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coro…

> But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks,

As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." If they said "go buy masks," that would mean leaving your house to get a mask, which would directly contradict the more important advice of staying home. Also if they said wear a mask when you leave the house it would have been interpreted as "it's ok to go on with normal events as long as we have masks" which wasn't the message they were trying to send, either. The message was stay home, and at the time it was probably the right message, and not a lie.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#755

Post by thereare5lights »

mcguire wrote: post #722
cactus2093 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have sources for your claims? I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coro…

Here's my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... [2019] " In summary, despite the various mechanistic arguments about which organisms can be potentially airborne and therefore aerosol-transmissible, ultimately, the main deciding factor appears to be how many studies using various differing approaches: empirical (clinical, epidemi…

How does this address the assertion that there's already been research out of Asia that says masks are effective against these kind of viruses?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#756

Post by AmericanChopper »

thereddaikon wrote: post #513
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.

That's not the sense I'm getting at all. Oh im sure there are those involved who fit the description. But for most, it isn't about making money at all. Its about financial warfare with "the man". The overwhelming majority of examples I have seen so far are only concerned with causing hedges funds to collapse and to put brokers out of business, personal losses be damned. And I see little reason to doubt this. Everyone…

> A lot of people are getting a 101 education on how the stock market really works and they are learning just how little it actually has to do with real value and the economy.

I don’t see how you can draw this conclusion from these events. If this level of price volatility was commonly caused by market participants, then it would be such big news when it happens. They’re not common at all, they represent a small number of events where a small number of shares were traded overvalue for very short periods of time. Nobody is concerned that stocks are overvalued because short squeezes are just happening all the time. Squeezes are also short sellers getting punished for trying to profit off somebody else’s losses, which as far as I can tell most people think is very morally righteous. The only time they’re controversial is when intervention occurs to rescue the short seller.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#757

Post by mike00632 »

Aunche wrote: post #753
mike00632 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except hedgefunds only trade money from accredited investors, i.e. people who can afford to lose a lot of money. They also typically aren't swayed by TikTok videos and short explainers of how shorts work designed to hype up GSE. The point is that Robinhood investors are being exploited.

Can you explain how you're disagreeing with me?

I disagreed with the statement about WSB users knowing what they're doing. Upon closer reading I think our larger points are the same. All over the internet I'm seeing sleazy promotions for GameStop stock targeted at young people who are inexperienced with trading. Anyone left holding GameStop stock when this ends will lose a lot, i.e. most of WSB.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#758

Post by relaxing »

dang wrote: post #704
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"…

" Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. " " Be kind. Don't be snarky. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you know more than others, that's wonderful. Please share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. None of what you wrote here helps anyone learn—it just puts others down, makes you sound supercilious, and makes the community worse. A comment like this stuck at th…

I feel like “resist the urge to post claims about concepts outside your domain/grasp” is clear, actionable advice that improves the community. What if you spent more time policing that, instead of policing of tone of people trying to make it better? Take care of the commons earlier, and then these type of posts wouldn’t be necessary.

I’m not sure why you would question the intentions of the upvoters - do you believe they don’t understand how the upvote system works? It seems clear they had every intention of promoting OP’s message and forcefulness with which it was delivered.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#759

Post by thereare5lights »

grahamburger wrote: post #754
cactus2093 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have sources for your claims? I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coro…

> But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." If they said "go buy masks," that would mean leaving your house to get a mask, which would directly contradict the more important advice of staying home. Also if they said…

I definitely remember a lot of talk from experts saying non-surgical masks don't work and that surgical masks should be saved for medical professionals.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#760

Post by caffeine »

dang wrote: post #704
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"…

" Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. " " Be kind. Don't be snarky. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you know more than others, that's wonderful. Please share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. None of what you wrote here helps anyone learn—it just puts others down, makes you sound supercilious, and makes the community worse. A comment like this stuck at th…

It's a humorous injunction that could be gainfully posted at the top of most controversial threads. Nothing wrong with warning people against bias and groupthink. Especially when the matter is deeply technical and outside of most participants'expertise.
Post reply on HN