Live data from Hacker News

Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

sec.gov

791–800 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#791
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…

> I doubt these self-styled “retards” will ever end up as depraved and corrupt as the people they’re disrupting.

But they sure would like to be. I've seen WSB. The entire system is selecting for sociopoaths.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#792
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unforeseen side effects of what was meant to be a very orderly and master-planned wind-down of one bank for the benefit of all the others — that speaks to the exact point I was making about the ridiculous notion that these are mature, all-knowing, all-wise adults. As far as good and bad people, well... The senior $LARGE_CONSUMER_BANK Vice-President who told me how much he loved the profit he was making off the ov…

> mature, all-knowing, all-wise adults. The market is incredibly complex. If you thought that executives can foresee the downstream effects of a given market event because they are "all-knowing, all-wise", then of course you are an idiot. But nobody you were arguing with even remotely thinks this. Of course , there is uncertainty. There was never going to be a "very orderly" draw-down, but the issues from the moral h…

> But nobody you were arguing with even remotely thinks this.

The SEC thinks this, the linked statement suggests believe they can foresee rapid and severe losses that normal traders can't. Someone in this argument likely agrees with the SEC.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CDC director is still telling people not to wear N95s This is an interesting point. The statement I read from her is saying that N95s are hard to wear for long periods of time, so people will wear them improperly. So the overall adherence is higher with cloth coverings and have a net higher benefit. She’s not saying “don’t wear n95s” she’s saying “we don’t recommend it because...” This is an important distinction.…

>Also N95s have to be fit tested to be effective. So randos buying N95s and wearing them will frequently not work. I don't think this is true. No box of 3M N95 masks I've ever bought has said anywhere "failure to fit test this mask renders it ineffective." 3M Aura masks have an instruction video on how to maximize the fit, but thats just a bit on how best to adjust the little metal bit that clamps around the nose. An…

Not completely ineffective, but ineffective at filtering the designed 95%. Here’s NIOSH’s page [0] defining fit testing and why it’s important. You don’t see this warning because it’s on NIOSH’s site, just like you don’t see the definition of all the stuff and just have the certification is for your test.

Some masks are just incompatible with some faces, it’s greaT that Aura’s have an instruction video, that doesn’t mean it will work for all people.

> An ill-fit N95 that might not be perfectly adjusted to conform is still way better than a cloth mask which isn't intended to seal at all.

I think you’re probably right. But I don’t know of a study that tests this because N95s are measured as conforming to spec, not when they are worn improperly without a seal at the nose and chin. I hope we get some info on this.

The Dirextors (and Fauci’s) comments weren’t about this though, they mentioned how N95s are uncomfortable and thus hard to wear consistently. Try wearing an N95 for 6 hours of school. Especially without training. I think the recommendation for cloth masks is because of the ability for people to wear them.

So the recommendation is not based around optimal standards of use, but around likely use.

This doesn’t mean that N95s don’t protect people. I wear them in public. I’m just trying to correct GP’s criticism that someone the CDC director’s comments are incorrect or illogical.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part...

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#794
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…

This "wild new phenomenon" is just boring old market manipulation. The only thing new about it is that the perpetrator is a subreddit instead of a licensed broker/dealer or other regulated entity. The appropriate thing to do is for the SEC to subpoena Reddit and RobinHood, correlate trades with posts to prove intent to manipulate the price (which IS illegal), and charge every individual with market manipulation. Just…

100% this. Price manipulation to trigger a short squeeze is explicitly illegal. https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm section 7.

Anyone who told others to buy and hold with promises of short covering and higher prices is party to market manipulation, and it is absolutely, definitely illegal. Whether they'll be able to unmask and charge people behind the anonymity of WSB is another question though.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CDC director is still telling people not to wear N95s This is an interesting point. The statement I read from her is saying that N95s are hard to wear for long periods of time, so people will wear them improperly. So the overall adherence is higher with cloth coverings and have a net higher benefit. She’s not saying “don’t wear n95s” she’s saying “we don’t recommend it because...” This is an important distinction.…

> Also N95s have to be fit tested to be effective. So randos buying N95s and wearing them will frequently not work. That was the excuse doctors were giving me in March that they all suddenly dropped. Are N95s without perfect fits worse than cloth masks, which don't have fit tests either? Are they better than no masks? Was Facebook wrong to stock up on N95s for employees during wildfire season? > So the overall adhere…

> Are they better than no masks?

This is the important question. Well are they? I’ve seen a lot of people wearing N95s and almost every one of them are wearing them incorrectly. Is this better than a cloth mask? I don’t know. But having huge gaps on the bridge of one’s nose where air flows is really bad to reduce risk. And my favorite is seeing them work with beards that prevent a seal.

I can’t find any tests of cloth mask vs bad n95. Saying “common sense” as the reason is not a compelling reason to try to get 300M people doing something.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charge everyone with market manipulation the same way that everyone who caused the 2008 recession was charged? Sincere question, because if they decide to charge individual investors who commented on a Reddit thread with market manipulation after my generation witnessed the downfall of the economy due to sheer lies and blatant manipulation by banks, with no major charges against anyone of importance, I, at least, wil…

I am not against charging certain actors in the 2008 crisis with fraud and manipulation either. The 2008 recession is not really a comparable event to the current GME short squeeze. It was rather a broad series of events, most of which were unfortunately legal, some of which were probably not. In that case I would be in favour of charging the ratings agencies with fraud, and possibly the financial regulators with gro…

its funny how its always a certain class of people "we didn't get", the answer isn't to shrug your shoulders and say oh well.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think everyone knows it wasn't simply that though, hence the outrage.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charge everyone with market manipulation the same way that everyone who caused the 2008 recession was charged? Sincere question, because if they decide to charge individual investors who commented on a Reddit thread with market manipulation after my generation witnessed the downfall of the economy due to sheer lies and blatant manipulation by banks, with no major charges against anyone of importance, I, at least, wil…

I am not against charging certain actors in the 2008 crisis with fraud and manipulation either. The 2008 recession is not really a comparable event to the current GME short squeeze. It was rather a broad series of events, most of which were unfortunately legal, some of which were probably not. In that case I would be in favour of charging the ratings agencies with fraud, and possibly the financial regulators with gro…

What a very convenient point of view for the people above the law. I hope they're passing some of their gains on to you.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#800
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big traders probably have friends in high places, so I suspect they're going after WSB and not wall street who caused the issues in the first place.

With the amount of media attention WSB has been gaining, this is setting itself up for "Wall Street versus The People" situation. It may be politically tough to go against the retailers now, particularly mid-pandemic and with all the other political comorbidities US is suffering from.

If after bubble pops it's shown that an elite group of WSB traders made huge profits while a large amount of retail traders lost their entire investment, I think there's going to be plenty of public appetite for nailing the market manipulators to the wall.
Post reply on HN