101–110 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fidelity is largest stock holder of GME.
So in the end it can be done when the right people make profit
EDIT: It seems my assumption was incorrect. This link posted by grandmczeb shows that RH needed more capital by a downstream dependency to ensure those trades: https://archive.is/GFtf2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside of WSB memes, how well known is DFV as a monicker vs roaring kitty. To the regular person, both are not household names. To anyone who is really invested in the story, they'd know both. The very small niche of people who know one but not the other isn't worth Reuters having to include profanity (not that I object to profanity).
I had heard about DFV but not Roaring Kitty.
Roaring Kitty = youtube channel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “The bottom line is that clients are still able to trade in GME, but we’ve put some restrictions on certain types of transactions in the interest of helping mitigate risk for our clients,” Schwab said Wednesday in a statement.[0] They very much did 3 weeks ago. Not to the same degree as the smaller brokerages, but they still put limitations on margin trading, and restrictions on options. [0] https://www.thinkadviso…
The string "put" does not occur in the article referenced. Existing restrictions became sizable due to the market volatility. This impacted certain clients of the brokerage that had significant exposure to the names relative to their account. Not the same thing as the brokerage implementing new restrictions.
It's interesting watching /r/wallstreetbets oscillate between "We did nothing wrong!" to "Well okay, some people were doing some things that were wrong, but hopefully no one will notice." https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/lj8djx/day_... (I don't personally believe that anyone did anything that should be prosecuted here, but what I believe is irrelevant to courts.) There is one thing that (in my un-humb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NSCC collateral rules are widely believed to follow directly from Dodd-Frank requirements. It's also hard to understand the supposed conspiracy you'd be prosecuting NSCC for. Is the idea here that NSCC was somehow corrupted by agents of hedge funds short on GME?
You make it sound like the DTCC is some neutral 3rd party organization that isn't there to represent Wall Street.
Given that, it isn't outside of realms of possibility that raising of collateral requirements had additional objectives other than simply limiting risk on the system (which, I should mention, was very, very real - in case RH went bankrupt). Normal people won't have any way to know.
Really disappointed at HN's recent stance on both crypto and GME. Far too many calls for regulation and control. This is not the free market proponents platform I used to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NSCC collateral rules are widely believed to follow directly from Dodd-Frank requirements. It's also hard to understand the supposed conspiracy you'd be prosecuting NSCC for. Is the idea here that NSCC was somehow corrupted by agents of hedge funds short on GME?
"widely believed"? Believed by whom and why? Dodd-Frank is not a secret. There either is a requirement in Dodd-Frank act or not. If there is, you or the persons believing it could just quote the relevant text. According to Vlad from Robinhood, as said in Clubhouse interview with E. Musk, there is discretionary (i.e. arbitrary) part of the collateral requirement set by NSCC. Initially NSCC asked RH for $3 billion in c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, no conspiracy. I just don't like that they can change their collateral requirement from 3% to 100% for specific stocks in one day, regardless of the reasons. To turn it around: should they have the authority to enforce a 33.3x collateral increase with no oversight simply because they feel it's necessary for the world to stop trading GME? This is the heart of what I hope will be regulated. BTW, playing whiskey sl…
I don't understand why you believe NSCC "felt it was necessary for the world to stop trading GME".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't change the rules of the game. The volatility and risk changed, thus the collateral requirements changed. Note: I am not a financial professional. I'm not sure if anyone from wsb should be prosecuted; but I will say that if another hedge fund had tried to do what wsb did, it would have been clearly and unambiguously illegal market manipulation. I do think it is quite likely there were some financial profes…
Can someone please explain the situation to someone with no competence how these markets work? As far as I understand, no one is allowed to trade on stock exchanges directly. Everyone has to go through a broker. Orders has to be settled in 2 days. So there are counterparty risks involved in both steps here. Is this where there was a problem? But the retail trading platform takes zero financial risk as long as they do…