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

81–90 of 95 posts

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

#81

Post by LeifCarrotson »

kennend3 wrote: post #56
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incorr…

This is the funny thing about the disclosure laws. The "influencers" may not have broken any trading rules, but their failure to disclose is an issue all to itself. > 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. There is a lot to unpack here. But it comes down to this. You can adve…

I was talking about Merit Financial/Goldline, who relentlessly advertise buying physical gold bars and coins as a safe haven asset for people easily confused by the economy. They encourage listeners to put their IRA in physical gold instead of stocks, bonds, or $USD, and allow you to keep the gold you bought safely insured in their vaults (for usurious rates) for retirement.

I suppose you're probably right, their claim that they're superior to other securities and exchanges would not actually bring them under the jurisdiction of the SEC.

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

#82

Post by calibas »

snapcaster wrote: post #77
calibas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, the stock market should be an open, visible and free agency for the population to invest in and gain returns from supporting publicly traded businesses. Now that trading is moving to "dark pools", things seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

You don't seem to understand what a "dark pool" is and I can't help but get the feeling your financial world model has been poisoned by supporters of very specific stocks. Please step out of whatever place you're learning this stuff from and expose yourself to alternative explanations for the things you're seeing

Please, give me your "alternative explanation" about how dark pools make stock trading more open and visible.

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

#83

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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?

> materially false statements

Give us a real example of something you think he said is illegal; being wrong or optimistic isn't illegal.

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

#84

Post by prirun »

devmunchies wrote: post #71
kahrl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BASELESS conspiracy theory.

I didn't propose a conspiracy theory, just noticing suspicious, coincidental timing. Its was THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING. A conspiracy theory would include why they wouldn't want him to talk (a la Esptein theories). And its literally not "baseless" if you ask if its coincidental that he was arrested the day before he was supposed to testify, why not let the hearing come and go and if he was a no show then arrest him?…

Maybe they didn't want him to go in front of Congress because they were afraid Congress might grant him immunity. Given all the money he donated to both sides, it seems plausible to me.

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

#85

Post by jsemrau »

snapcaster wrote: post #75
jsemrau wrote: post #73

Clearly shows that every social platform that was launched with good intentions can be abused by snake-oil salesmen to promote their products. What would it take to weed this out? 1. Confirm holdings before posting. 2. Display holdings at time of posting to other users. 3. Defined area of expertise (not everyone is an expert in everything) - Always a nice warning sign if people are commenting on stocks all across ind…

I don't think any of that would work. I'm not letting the criminals off the hook but we have to acknowledge that the people who are taking stock pick advice from "The Stock Sniper" on twitter are greedy morons. They aren't reading financial statements let alone some kind of peer-reviewed research. In fact, Bed Bath and Beyond stock cultists got confirmed (by SEC filings) dumped on by Ryan Cohen and they're still clai…

Everyone in that industry is greedy. That's why everyone is there, I suppose. The whole purpose is to make money. And the only way to make money is to take it away from someone who had the contrarian opinion.

These people they prayed on were the uninformed and lazy. It's comparable to Sequoia investing in FTX. They just assumed that someone else had done their research before and went along for the ride. Now they wrote an apology note to their LPs. : https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073

How can a retail investor distinguish a good apple from a bad one? At least for "Zach Morris" he seemed successful with that scheme - https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603079409195425793/... At least to the extent that he got 10 properties to collect. So by that notion he is not "just some rando on Twitter".

Finally. Both links I have provided were also posted on social media. The problem is that it is not easy to distinguish who is full of it and who is credible.

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

#86

Post by snapcaster »

calibas wrote: post #82
snapcaster wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to understand what a "dark pool" is and I can't help but get the feeling your financial world model has been poisoned by supporters of very specific stocks. Please step out of whatever place you're learning this stuff from and expose yourself to alternative explanations for the things you're seeing

Please, give me your "alternative explanation" about how dark pools make stock trading more open and visible.

Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth. That being said, it does make it much more accessible to retail investors. Trading stocks without fees and more or less instantly is impossible without dark pools. We could do away with dark pools entirely, but it would mean going back to paying $9.99 for trades or whatever but somehow I expect the same people crying about dark pools wouldn't like that either.

Another aspect of dark pool hate is the idea that market impact can be reduced by selling through them as opposed to on market. If you're a speculator, this can be good or bad depending on the side of the trade you're on so probably evens out to a wash. If you're a long term investor, this is also a wash since you shouldn't be concerned about short term volatility (or lack thereof) of your investment.

What exactly do you take issue with when it comes to dark pools? what problems do you think they're causing that outweigh the very real benefits to market participants I listed?

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

#87

Post by snapcaster »

jsemrau wrote: post #85
snapcaster wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any of that would work. I'm not letting the criminals off the hook but we have to acknowledge that the people who are taking stock pick advice from "The Stock Sniper" on twitter are greedy morons. They aren't reading financial statements let alone some kind of peer-reviewed research. In fact, Bed Bath and Beyond stock cultists got confirmed (by SEC filings) dumped on by Ryan Cohen and they're still clai…

Everyone in that industry is greedy. That's why everyone is there, I suppose. The whole purpose is to make money. And the only way to make money is to take it away from someone who had the contrarian opinion. These people they prayed on were the uninformed and lazy. It's comparable to Sequoia investing in FTX. They just assumed that someone else had done their research before and went along for the ride. Now they wro…

But it actually is quite easy for me and I expect most people on this HN thread. The people who aren't able to easily distinguish your two links are really dumb. If exposure to information would be able to make them not dumb it would have already. I just don't think any of these "lets verify facts" kind of schemes will work in here anymore than it didn't work in US politics (fact checkers etc.)

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

#88

Post by calibas »

snapcaster wrote: post #86
calibas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, give me your "alternative explanation" about how dark pools make stock trading more open and visible.

Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth. That being said, it does make it much more accessible to retail investors. Trading stocks without fees and more or less instantly is impossible without dark pools. We could do away with dark pools entirely, but it would mean going back to paying $9.99 for trades or whatever but somehow I expect…

> Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth.

My whole comment was that they make stock trading the opposite of "open and visible", then you come along and tell me that I don't understand what a dark pool is...

That's exactly what a dark pool does, you just see that as a good thing because it benefits investors. I'm more concerned about their effect on the other 99% of the human population.

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

#89

Post by ohgodplsno »

chollida1 wrote: post #26
ohgodplsno wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crame gave to the world the Inverse Cramer ETF, which actually makes a lot of money.

> Crame gave to the world the Inverse Cramer ETF, which actually makes a lot of money. Can you show me the returns of this inverse Cramer ETF? As far as I can tell it hasn't been released yet, look for ticker SJIM. if this is true it makes the second part of your statement look like you just flat out made it up.

https://unusualwhales.com/etfs

As it stands, shorting everything Cramer says to buy (and buying everything he says to short) has a +21% return rate.

Yes, it requires you to use your fingers and manually buy/sell individual stocks instead of buying a single ETF. But then it wouldn't be HN without needlessly pedantic users.

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

#90

Post by snapcaster »

calibas wrote: post #88
snapcaster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth. That being said, it does make it much more accessible to retail investors. Trading stocks without fees and more or less instantly is impossible without dark pools. We could do away with dark pools entirely, but it would mean going back to paying $9.99 for trades or whatever but somehow I expect…

> Sure, but first off I never claimed they "make stock trading more open and visible" that was you putting words in my mouth. My whole comment was that they make stock trading the opposite of "open and visible", then you come along and tell me that I don't understand what a dark pool is... That's exactly what a dark pool does, you just see that as a good thing because it benefits investors. I'm more concerned about t…

Why would non-investors care whether trades in something they don't participate happen in a "lit" exchange or a "dark pool"? I don't play basketball, so not concerned at all about changes to basketball rules. Now i'm very confused on your point
Post reply on HN