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

801–810 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#801

Post by PartiallyTyped »

mike00632 wrote: post #757
Aunche wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention to WSB. WSB knows full well they will lose everything. We call it Loss Porn and it gets us going. When you see 5,6,7 figures in losses you get desensitised to it. It's a casino, yes we sometimes make money, we call that the first time, you know, the first one is free.

Besides the jokes and the memes, Chamath went on CNBC and argued that WSB provided very good due diligence in some instances. Yes a lot of it is utter garbage, no doubt, but when there are specialists there able to call each other out, you get to see good analysis.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#803

Post by IMTDb »

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 management under Dick were behaving like cowboys

Exactly. and that's why they went under. Let's look at all possibilities :

- Maybe Dick knew that the management under him was behaving like cowboys, and tried to stop it. Then that's sad, but so far no one seem to have given any tangible proof that this was the case.

- Maybe Dick knew the that the management under him was behaving like cowboys, and did not tried to stop it. And he got what he deserved.

- Maybe Dick just did not realize that the management under him was behaving like cowboys. Then the company he was a part of got what it deserved for putting that man - who was not competent enough to realize what was going on - in a position of power.

- Maybe Dick did not realize that the management under him was behaving like cowboys. But the "company policy" prevented him from acting. Then he should have left. You don't reach such positions without playing the game.

Maybe Lehman was not the only one doing all of that. But Lehman was definitely one. As such they maybe should not have been the only one to die, but they definitely deserved what they got. I don't buy the "I was a clueless nice guy that got caught in the middle of it" story. He's not sorry he did it, he's only sorry he got caught, otherwise he would just have left sooner.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#804

Post by RHSeeger »

jeffbee wrote: post #112
RHSeeger wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it illegal to corner the market on a product because you know someone else is going to need to buy it, so you can charge them a lot because they must buy from you? It seems like what is being done is pretty much this; just for a large definition of "you".

Yes, it is broadly illegal to corner or attempt to corner any market, and the law directs the CFTC to step in and and void commodities contracts or take whatever other actions it deems appropriate when it finds that a market has been destabilized. See 7 USC 12a(9).

Interesting. Thanks for the pointer to the details, too.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#805

Post by relaxing »

dang wrote: post #766
relaxing wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are other ways to make such points which don't break the site guidelines. You're ignoring the damage to the community that I'm writing about, which is much more important. Massive, low-information, vicious flamewars are the biggest existential threat to the community. I don't believe that either the commenter or the upvoters wanted an off-topic flamewar to be pinned at the top of the most popular thread on HN's…

OP directly addresses the topic with the goal of improving the community. That you think it is both OT and malicious makes me incredibly sad. Calling that particular subset of voters thoughtless because you disagree with them is a nasty brand of solipsism.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#806

Post by sumedh »

fnimick wrote: post #794
caffeine wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.

A good lawyer can argue that these people are exercising their first amendment right of free speech. They are not reporting false data and most of these people commenting have "average" net worth not millions/billions.

Its also very hard to prove to a jury that a message from such an average joe on a message board is enough to form a "scheme" with million other readers on wsb.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#807

Post by orestarod »

claw_howitzer wrote: post #791
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…

> 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.

But it sure is a lot of fun.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#808

Post by orestarod »

fnimick wrote: post #794
caffeine wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can that even be remotely true. Virtually every comment there explicitly states it does not constitute financial advice.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#809

Post by f430 »

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…

Ah so Dick was the scapegoat. I've been in similar situations. I've been asked to lie to our clients. I think I wrote about that here before I got downvoted and people tried to doxx me to find out which company it was.

when I refused to go along they turned me into a scapegoat. THIS is why I had to do what I had to do.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#810

Post by orestarod »

vegesm wrote: post #620
NoOneNew wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, let me google "how short sellers hurt companies" for you. First link of one practice: short and distort https://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp You can google more yourself.

which is all illegal and there is no indication that was happening with Gamestop

Well your average Joe buying stocks with his hard earned money and then doing whatever he wants with them is not illegal too, but that's being debated by the parties with the appropriate interests.
Post reply on HN