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

811–820 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#811

Post by orestarod »

nuusr120121 wrote: post #719
NoOneNew wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything on WSB states this is a bad investment plan and is more to bankrupt Melvin because they tried to bankrupt Gamestop. Short sellers have been using the down turned economy to collapse struggling companies that hire everyday people. What's funny is how the HN community tries to defend the firms they've whined about for years. Is what's going on irrational? Yup. But it pulls back the curtain of what the financ…

I noticed this recent trend of stuff turning annoying political in that sub. There is so much trash being posted now drowning out useful DD. I think at the end of the day, the original WSB crowd cares way less about political statements and solely making money.

Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but more than a political statement, this seems to be indeed a way to make the most money possible. Political tones are a satisfying sprinkle for many, but what everyone understands there is the more they hold, the higher the value gets. We will be able to judge by the result shortly.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#812

Post by bhl »

selectodude wrote: post #787
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…

He conveniently left out the fact that Lehman was the only bank that wasn’t helpful during the collapse of Long Term Capital Management, not that it changes anything. Basically the other banks and the NY Fed decided to send a fuck you for not cooperating ten years prior.

What do you mean by not helpful. From the wikipedia on LTCM,

- The contributions from the various institutions were as follows:

- $300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS

- $125 million: Société Générale

- $100 million: Paribas and Lehman Brothers

- Bear Stearns and Crédit Agricole declined to participate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management#1...

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#813

Post by mcguire »

seabird wrote: post #745
mcguire wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a long term value investor who is mostly noshing po'corn and watching, I have a couple of questions: Don't the settlement worries provide evidence of naked shorts? (Naked shorts being selling a share without being sure the share would be available at settlement? And naked shorts illegal?) Wouldn't the normal procedure be to halt all trading until the issues had cleared up? As opposed to allowing positions…

Naked shorts are not impossible, especially if you're talking about naked call options. They're comparatively rare (being illegal just means you get fined if you get caught, it's really "not that serious" for a big player), and small timers aren't allowed to participate, but they're not impossible. An even bigger point than that is that the short doesn't necessarily have to be naked in the legal sense for you to fail…

But halting trading is not entirely uncommon. It's what happens when weird stuff is going on. I've never heard of preventing opening new positions while allowing positions to be closed.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#814

Post by UncleMeat »

NoOneNew wrote: post #388
sanderjd wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what oh-so-many people are missing: the gigantic volume in these stocks is no longer coming from the WSB YOLO bros who know they'll lose money but think that's worth it to stick it to hedge funds. That may well be who was getting into the stock on Monday and Tuesday. But now it is people who saw the story on Good Morning America, having never previously heard of WSB or Robinhood, who don't care about hedge fun…

So it's WSB fault that the news outlets spun the narrative to confuse people? Sorry, but hasn't the news spinning and generally misconstruing news stories to the benefit of their advertisers and financiers agendas been the issue the past few years?

What narrative? I've seen every possible article on the topic in the last two days. Every single narrative exists. Brilliant retail investors. David and Goliath. Idiotic YOLOing. Claims that Robinhood, etc are in cahoots to sabotage people. Claims that this isn't about the money and actually it is about screwing the rich. The squeeze is illegal/legal. The trading halts are illegal/legal.

There is clearly no coordinated agenda among news agencies here. It is a compelling story and a bunch of people wrote their hot takes on the topic.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#815

Post by TearsInTheRain »

kypro wrote: post #781
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…

Can someone explain why my perspective is wrong on hedgefunds please? My understanding is that the GFC happened because the whole economy was levered to hell. At the risk of referencing the big short, there was a scene in that film where a stripper has levered herself up so much she owns five home. The reason the GFC happened was in reality because average people were levered up on real estate and couldn't afford the…

You want to blame the regulators but imho any system that relies solely regulators is going to be fragile. The regulators always have a chance of being captured by the industry or just plain incompetent.

We have a culture of people not feeling the negative repercussions of "bad actions". Buying multiple homes was irresponsible, mortgage brokers immediately selling every loan is a moral hazard and Wall street levering up on CDOs were all problems. All of them deserve blame BUT the hedge funds and mortgage brokers got bailouts and the home buyers didnt. That smells like BS to me and anger at the people that allowed that to happen, hedge funds and bankers included, looks justified to me

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#816

Post by jacquesm »

dnautics wrote: post #772
hinkley wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whistl…

> The problem with a conscience is that it gives you a tell. We should encourage conscientious people to play more poker, I guess.

They do. And they're called suckers for a reason.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#817

Post by dnautics »

jacquesm wrote: post #816
dnautics wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with a conscience is that it gives you a tell. We should encourage conscientious people to play more poker, I guess.

They do. And they're called suckers for a reason.

Well in poker there is an implicit contract that everyone there knows what they are in for (or should, anyways), so there should be nothing hanging on their conscience (for some categories of philosophical systems around conscientiousness)

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#818

Post by whatshisface »

itronitron wrote: post #611
throwaway-571 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of depressing when you look at these crazy success stories of lottery winners. You realize even a small bet at the right time could be life-changing. Let's say instead of buying a Latte every working days at starbucks over the last five years you had invested it in tesla stocks. Or maybe for every starbucks latte you drank, you invested the same amount in ETF and in Tesla (pay 3 latte, drink one). Where wou…

It's funny, because I was visiting Gamestop's website last November trying to find a Pink 3DS and remember thinking, 'oof, Gamestop's website is in bad shape'. When I get the FOMO urge I think about how BBY just sucks as a store, how much better Netflix is than AMC, and how airlines regularly go bankrupt. I believe that GameStop has a future as they have a lot of mind share and goodwill. But they need to get rid of t…

The idea behind buying those companies wasn't that they had a lot of a future, it was that they had more of a future than their price estimated.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#819

Post by quickthrowman »

xapata wrote: post #353
markbnj wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this. I can't imagine the professional investor class is still blindly following their shorts. They're all out by now, aren't they? If the "little guys" are making money I tend to think it's coming from other little guys.

Why would you short when you can buy a put option?

IV crush

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#820

Post by mathattack »

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…

Rick may not have been a scumbag, but he walked from the deal that could have saved the bank.
Post reply on HN