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

241–250 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#241

Post by ramraj07 »

tompccs wrote: post #212
jancsika wrote: post #121

A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…

I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is seriously wearing thin. Pretty…

Oh boy let's not get started on physicists this week!

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#242

Post by iso1631 »

tompccs wrote: post #212
jancsika wrote: post #121

A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…

I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is seriously wearing thin. Pretty…

From what I can tell almost no professional investers beat the market, almost nobody wins the lottery. Why should I listen to lottery players or professional wall street gamers?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#243

Post by alkonaut »

Miner49er wrote: post #165
dkrich wrote: post #75

There’s a long history of similar occurrences that follow along a common line: whatever appears to support individual investors will be the path taken by politicians and regulatory bodies. Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is probably very little truth to…

> Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is probably very little truth to this. The fact that buying was limited yesterday is evidence that the little guy is actually winning here. Trading was stopped to save the hedge funds, because if they go under or lose to…

Then the clearinghouse should fail, rather than the private actors saved.

Once one accepts that "socialized risk and private profits" isn't acceptable, then one must also accept that either we must allow even the too big to fail actors to fail, or we must not accept any actor to be too big to fail at all.

If public money is used to rescue a bank or clearinghouse, then the public should own it. A government institution can buy any failing bank/clearing house/ if it's so vital, and then the public owns it. Buying a commercial bank or clearing house at cents for the dollar and then selling it again in better times isn't necessarily a bad idea. It's certainly a better idea in terms of moral hazard than simply "bailing out" banks without ownership.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#244

Post by tompccs »

xapata wrote: post #223
tompccs wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is seriously wearing thin. Pretty…

I think bullets 3 and 5 were the main point of that comment. It wasn't well-said, but it is in fact valuable to spend a moment to get familiar with the jargon a person is using, even if that jargon happens to have homonyms with a different field's jargon. That effort is what allows us to "swim out of our lanes" as you might say.

Fair enough, it's more the condescending attitude that rubs me up the wrong way. And if the words regulators use mean to them different things than they mean to everyone else (the people whom the regulations are ostensibly supposed to protect), that's probably interesting in itself! If you are charged with 'theft' under a law that defines 'theft' in a very different way to how you or your peers would define it, that's probably going to be a problem. So I'm all for a discussion on what the jargon actually means, if anyone has any insights beyond making general snipes at the HN community.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#245

Post by klodolph »

jancsika wrote: post #121

A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the concepts. 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. 4. Sees the word "manipulation" 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation"…

> 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build to magically render learning materials to the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost.

I will say that I’m not too busy for this at the moment, and getting to my very basic level of understanding has required me to sort through, at the very least, a fairly decent chunk of reference material and reading interpretations and explanations online.

Like, here’s some things I’ve been grappling with understanding recently:

How do settlement risk, clearing brokers, and clearinghouses work? Why does buying an ordinary stock carry so much settlement risk?

Why do market makers buy stock for delta hedging? How do they figure out how much stock to buy?

To make an analogy, it feels like I’m some kid in chemistry class who just learned how to draw bond diagrams, and then I watch a video of someone talking about how they figured out the structure of some chemical using Raman spectroscopy.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#246

Post by iso1631 »

xapata wrote: post #240
kodah wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think smart people just do this. When I got sick with COVID I cannot begin to describe the number of people who became doctors during this unprecedented time , only to send me outdated comments, articles, and speculation. All of these people thought they were smarter than the instruction I received from a real doctor, nurse practitioner, and the CDC. These were smart people, though, and mostly (but not…

> a real doctor, nurse practitioner, and the CDC Sadly, many doctors and nurses are statistically illiterate. I know, because I (try to) teach them statistics. Remember, the Surgeon General of the CDC said that, "[masks] are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus," perhaps in some misguided belief that avoiding panicked mask-buying was more important than a mask-wearing public. [Sorry f…

> The CDC was parroting the anti-mask blather of the Trump administration

And the WHO were too?

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#247

Post by politician »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #220
Dirlewanger wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>nobody blames the speculators The hedge funds are the speculators in this case. They're playing a dangerous game where you can short more stock than what actually exists. Why this is allowed? Who the fuck knows.

I think this "is allowed" for the same reason that I can borrow a book from you, sell it on Amazon, and when you ask for your book back, buy a copy of that same book on Amazon and give it to you - but in the meantime, the person who bought your book from me can lend it to yet another person, who does the same as me. In other words, this works simply because stocks can be sold and borrowed, and they don't carry proven…

Security ownership is the killer app for blockchain.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#249

Post by slumdev »

metalliqaz wrote: post #233
tompccs wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is seriously wearing thin. Pretty…

> Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market. When? Who? Are you talking about, say, Dr. Burry and the mortgage bubble? Because he was definitely an 'expert' already.

Dr. Burry was trained as a medical doctor and started investing on the side.

Definitely not one of the anointed "experts" who followed the too-common family connections, Ivy League, and i-banking VP path.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#250

Post by tootie »

josephorjoe wrote: post #144
malwarebytess wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robinhood says that they basically couldn't fulfil the buy orders because they ran out of money, or couldn't fulfil the orders without breaking the rest of the platform. I imagine whatever the reason there's going to be lawsuits.

Whatever else happens, Robinhood should not survive this. They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their customers should leave them. And I will be completely unsurprised if when the dust settles it turns out they acted illegally. Also, they suck at lying.

As has been stated elsewhere, it is easier to recover from alienating customers than it is from running afoul of the SEC. They ran a very real risk of being forcibly shut down by regulators if they didn't slow trading.
Post reply on HN