Live data from Hacker News

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

sec.gov

41–50 of 95 posts

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

#41

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 guessing that kramer and everyone around him is under the radar for taking opposite trades to what he's pitching, otherwise it would be a farce. Pump and dumpers get nailed to the wall because they sell while they are telling everyone to buy. They are not providing bad financial advise, they are defrauding people.

They also published false information about the stocks in order to justify why their followers should buy it.

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

#42

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?

A lot comes down to subtle language syntax. For instance, you can say "we target 12% returns," but you can't say "we guarantee 12% returns." You can say "we out-performed the market by over 3% a year for each of the past ten years," but you can't say "we're going to out-perform the market because we have the past ten years." You can say "company X is a great business, and the stock looks cheap here," but you can't sa…

This is only part of the issue ("Guarantees").

The far larger and more important issue is disclosure laws.

As the other guy posted, you cant recommend one thing and do another.

"we recommend you BUY XYZ" while you are holding a lot of shares in this and sell into the buy market you created.

You also cant offer recommendations without disclosing how you are compensated.

I'm Canadian and more familiar with its rules / regulations but Canadian rules are often best practices used globally.

https://www.iiroc.ca/news-and-publications/notices-and-guida...

Disclosure of financial interest (clause 3608(2)(ii))

A Dealer must disclose whether any person involved in creating the content of a research report has an ownership interest in the subject issuer’s securities. When disclosing ownership interests, a Dealer is not required to include information relating to administrative or clerical staff involved in preparing a research report.

Disclosure of remunerated services (clause 3608(2)(iii)) Clause 3608(2)(iii):

does not require duplicate disclosure from the individuals when the Dealer discloses the services, and excludes normal investment advisory or trade execution services, such as an investment account by the issuer.

Disclosure if making a market (clause 3608(2)(vi))

A Dealer must disclose if it is making a market in an equity or equity related security of the issuer. In addition, a Dealer must make the same disclosure in a fixed income research report if the Dealer is making a market in an equity or equity related security of the issuer.

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

#43

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?

Less blatant, and also has connections and influence.

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

#44

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?

>According to the SEC, since at least January 2020, seven of the defendants promoted themselves as successful traders and cultivated hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter and in stock trading chatrooms on Discord. These seven defendants allegedly purchased certain stocks and then encouraged their substantial social media following to buy those selected stocks by posting price targets or indicating they were buying, holding, or adding to their stock positions. However, as the complaint alleges, when share prices and/or trading volumes rose in the promoted securities, the individuals regularly sold their shares without ever having disclosed their plans to dump the securities while they were promoting them.

They were literally pump-and-dumping. This is, to the letter, illegal. Cramer is not doing that.

These 'analysts' on CNBC are supposed to follow disclosure rules.

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

#45
post #11

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?

Jim is most likely not trading the securities directly. The money he makes is from his tv contracts and other non-securities trading business probably. Maybe being paid by the companies to shill for them.

Need to ask the SEC he invest in the SJIM ETF if that ever happens. They do the opposite of what he suggests.

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

#46

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?

No laws against incorrectly predicting the movement of securities. There are laws to prevent pump and dump of securities for profit. If Cramer was giving price predictions that benefited him without disclosing his positions, he would be violating the law. It is necessarily illegal to provide guidance of stock movement if you hold the stock. You need to say what positions your holding. Short sellers do this all the time legally.

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

#48

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)

[deleted]

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

#49
post #46

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?

No laws against incorrectly predicting the movement of securities. There are laws to prevent pump and dump of securities for profit. If Cramer was giving price predictions that benefited him without disclosing his positions, he would be violating the law. It is necessarily illegal to provide guidance of stock movement if you hold the stock. You need to say what positions your holding. Short sellers do this all the ti…

> is necessarily illegal to provide guidance of stock movement if you hold the stock

... unless you disclose your position?

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

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot comes down to subtle language syntax. For instance, you can say "we target 12% returns," but you can't say "we guarantee 12% returns." You can say "we out-performed the market by over 3% a year for each of the past ten years," but you can't say "we're going to out-perform the market because we have the past ten years." You can say "company X is a great business, and the stock looks cheap here," but you can't sa…

This is only part of the issue ("Guarantees"). The far larger and more important issue is disclosure laws. As the other guy posted, you cant recommend one thing and do another. "we recommend you BUY XYZ" while you are holding a lot of shares in this and sell into the buy market you created. You also cant offer recommendations without disclosing how you are compensated. I'm Canadian and more familiar with its rules /…

How does this relate to advertising?

They're recommending people give their cash to buy a thing (I'm specifically thinking of the "Cash for gold" ads which are constantly playing on the conservative talk radio that our machinists listen to in the shop), while they're doing the opposite: giving away their gold to in exchange for your cash.

Either they're acting against their own self-interest, sacrificing their incorruptible, safe gold for the risky, inflationary fiat currency, or they're lying about what they believe.

Post reply on HN