Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#31

Post by kennend3 »

satellites wrote: post #8

I'm a noob when it comes to stock trading rules, but can someone explain how this is different than what Jim Cramer does on his show? Cramer has been exposed for knowingly giving people bad stock trading advice. Is it just that Cramer didn't do a blatantly obvious pump-and-dump like these influencers did?

I'm a former project manager who did work for a major banks compliance team, that same bank had an equity research division as well and so i can shed some light here for you.

One of the biggest concerns is what you are doing in private vs what you are doing publicly.

So lets say "Big Bank" says "we recommend XYZ with a target price of $19.99 by end of year, our recommendation is BUY"

On the surface there is no issues with this, but lets say "BIG BANK" is LONG a million shares of XYZ.. Now you have a potential issue.

You are telling your clients to BUY (upward pressure on the stock) while you have a big bet that the stock will go up.

In the industry we refer to this as "talking your book" https://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-one-s-book

Over the years the rules have tighten when it comes to equity research and disclosing your position.

Now to the issue with what took place here - The individuals advocating the stock, how were they compensated? What is their position on those stocks?

Because this is UNCLEAR it is a violation of the SEC rules.

Lastly, one thing still bothers me about equity research is the rare "Sell" recommendation. Very few equity research departments ever issue a "Sell" recommendation..

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#32

Post by anon291 »

woah wrote: post #7

Finally, people are starting to realize that the "stock market" is a huge scam

The SEC has been around for many decades and prosecuting cases like this for just as long. If you work in finance in any form, there are myriad rules you have to follow to not be prosecuted.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#33

Post by kahrl »

devmunchies wrote: post #10
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #5

I'm rarely a cheerleader for the SEC, but their work this week alone has been marvellous. Delighted to see these guys brought to book.

They jumped the gun on SBF. Should have let him testify in congress. The timing makes it look like they didn’t want him to talk. May not be the case but it’s what it looks like.

BASELESS conspiracy theory.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#34

Post by brookst »

woeirua wrote: post #29

The SEC has no teeth until they go after Elon. When are they going to take him to task for making materially false statements regarding Telsa's FSD ambitions?

It’s a big organization. They can do more than one thing at a time. Let’s not play at binary thinking.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#36

Post by anonporridge »

AccountAccount1 wrote: post #6

This is the list of people they've charged: - Perry Matlock @PJ_Matlock - Edward Constantin @MrZackMorris - Thomas Cooperman @ohheytommy - Gary Deel @notoriousalerts - Mitchell Hennessey @Hugh_Henne - Stefan Hrvatin @LadeBackk - John Rybarcyzk @Ultra_Calls - Daniel Knight (@DipDeity)

It's nice to see I don't know, much less follow, any of these people.

Similar feeling to when SBF went bust. Even though I'm heavily involved in the bitcoin space, I barely knew anything about him other than vague praise of his effective altruism ideals and more pro-crypto/anti-bitcoin stance and that he ran a seedy, off shore exchange. Only afterwards did a lot of the people I actually do follow and respect resurface their old criticisms of SBF, e.g. Jack Mallers in June, https://twitter.com/jackmallers/status/1536834021354786823

It's nice to get some confirmation that the people I follow and give attention to are worthy of it. TBD if that continues.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#37

Post by mc32 »

sebmellen wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kramer and everyone around him is under the radar for taking opposite trades to what he's pitching Unless disclosed, this is illegal. (EDIT: Never mind, idioms.)

I believe kobalsky intended "under the radar" to mean "under surveillance", so as to ensure such TV personalities are not placing trades that contradict what they're pitching.

I am under the impression at least some media employers bar their finance presenters from investing in stocks due to appearance of impropriety and in extremes conflict of interest.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#38

Post by wccrawford »

sebmellen wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kramer and everyone around him is under the radar for taking opposite trades to what he's pitching Unless disclosed, this is illegal. (EDIT: Never mind, idioms.)

I believe kobalsky intended "under the radar" to mean "under surveillance", so as to ensure such TV personalities are not placing trades that contradict what they're pitching.

Yeah, I agree. "Under the radar" usually means "hidden from view" and "under a microscope" means "under heavy scrutiny". I think the poster above just got the wrong idiom.

Re: SEC charges eight social media influencers in $100M stock manipulation scheme

#39

Post by acomjean »

satellites wrote: post #8

I'm a noob when it comes to stock trading rules, but can someone explain how this is different than what Jim Cramer does on his show? Cramer has been exposed for knowingly giving people bad stock trading advice. Is it just that Cramer didn't do a blatantly obvious pump-and-dump like these influencers did?

In the 90s it was “Dan Dorfman” on tv. There started to be some wondering were people feeding him info so the stocks he talked about on tv would move. It’s subtle, “learned” vs “heard”

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/09/magazine/a-mover-of-marke...

Post reply on HN