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

411–420 of 906 posts

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#411

Post by whatshisface »

dleslie wrote: post #336
throwaway-571 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a spoiler tag on HN ? These ones still hurt: There is a lot of thing one could have done "for the LULz" but decided to browse HN, Imgur or Reddit instead. - Bitcoin. I heard about it when it was still possible to mint it on CPU, but chose to run SETI@Home instead. - Bitcoin when it was at merely $9000. - Ethereum when it was going under $1. - Dogecoin like anytime before yesterday (up 6x or something today).…

Dogecoin is ... Just _why_? There's no limit on the number of coins. Mining is designed to be forever-easy. The coin is _designed_ for rapid deflation. Why are people treating it as anything other than the joke it was intended to be?

I really have no idea, but your question suggests its own answer: fiat currencies are also designed for eternal inflation (I think you swapped inflation with deflation) and many people consider that a boon.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#412

Post by ComputerGuru »

blackearl wrote: post #141
TeMPOraL wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the SEC rules. "Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal." From https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm . It's an open question whether this case is more of a natural occurrence or "a scheme to manipulate", given that it's all randos who found a Schelling point and are now hyping…

If the SEC isn't going to litigate the naked short selling that preceded this, it's really hard to not cry hypocrisy.

You seem to be under the impression that a stock can’t be shorted more than 100% without naked short selling. This is not true.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#413

Post by dkrich »

kenneth wrote: post #326
dkrich wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean do people really believe Robinhood traders are moving billions of dollars of stock a day? Most admit that they aren’t selling and buying at higher and higher levels. That translates to very little cash to buy more. There is absolutely no way that these moves can be attributed to retail traders or short squeezes. The narrative that these are retailers causing every significant move higher and with every move th…

Let's say the average bet is 1-5k into this the average Robinhood user invests around 5k), it only takes 200k-1M buying in to move $1B into the stock. When you start with a $200M market cap on a heavily shorted stock, you easily end up where we are today

And doing it every day? Even now that the stock is $350 a share? If they are able to do that I have to question the “little guy” tag.

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#414

Post by f430 »

xbmcuser wrote: post #371
dleslie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FOMO is palpable. There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one and only chance at a comfortable life. This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed.

We are going to find out what will happen soon. As looking at the trade volumes people seem to have stopped selling or buying looking at the stock prices and the trades it looks like hf traders rather than retail

The rally will continue as long as there are buyers given the price and the neural pathways have been fully mapped out.

What I'm worried about is that there were more than one Melvin Capital with several banks now involved who do not own enough shares to cover the shorts.

Which means we are literally witnessing a money printer go brrr situation where as long as there are people buying in due to FOMO or some us-vs-them politics, the prices will rally.

The most shocking part is how exposed not only the brokers are but now the banks are also exposed. We are literally seeing a repeat of 1929.

https://www.history.com/news/1929-stock-market-crash-warning...

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#415

Post by [deleted] »

xbmcuser wrote: post #371
dleslie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FOMO is palpable. There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one and only chance at a comfortable life. This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed.

We are going to find out what will happen soon. As looking at the trade volumes people seem to have stopped selling or buying looking at the stock prices and the trades it looks like hf traders rather than retail

[deleted]

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#416

Post by [deleted] »

joncrane wrote: post #343
zaphod4prez wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclaimer I do NOT know what I'm talking about, just repeating what I saw on Twitter) It seems like they've all closed their shorts already, most of them did on like day 2 I believe. In addition, other hedge funds have been on the winning side of this trade. Some of the orders for GME last few days have been absolutely massive, not coming from retail.

I believe the statements were worded in such a way to try to make people believe that the short squeeze was no longer in play, but the short interest in fact never changed and maybe even went up. I believe they were also worded in a way to be technically correct (for example if they had multiple short positions, e.g. naked short calls, if they "closed their short position" that could mean they chose their smallest/ch…

[deleted]

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#417

Post by TeMPOraL »

beaconstudios wrote: post #395
TeMPOraL wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "narcissists", I say I'm tired of seeing people shutting down anyone who uses their brain to try and comprehend the facts - and god forbid they know some math and are capable of formal reasoning. This approach is just teaching people to repeat memes after pundits and not use their brain - instead of teaching them to work on better reasoning skills, and applying these skills to the problems they face, while ac…

I totally agree that merit of arguments should be earned by the argument, but on HN there's an awful lot of bad arguments posited in terms of "I think it probably works THIS way based on how I imagined up the entire industry in my head" that then go on to try to make a "hoho those stupid industry insiders, they didn't see solution X" point on said completely imaginary model. IE, not very rigorous models being used ov…

The arguments posited in terms of "I think it probably works THIS way ..." are arguably the best ones - they qualify someone's lack of expertise and save the reader from assigning undue confidence to claims :).

That said, Internet discussions are run on Cunningham's Law - you say what you think you know, and others will call your errors out, or challenge your assumptions. As long as people don't read any single comment as gospel, but consider the whole discussion in context of their own knowledge, applying basic critical thinking, everyone gets to train their reasoning skills and learn something. I'd expect this to be a baseline on HN.

I'm confident being the protagonist of that XKCD is a rite of passage in this industry :).

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#418

Post by [deleted] »

enraged_camel wrote: post #210
dagw wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) A few hedge funds (of different sizes) are indeed losing billions. A few other hedge funds have taken the opposite side of this bet and are making money. The vast majority of hedge funds have no position in this stock and are completely unaffected. In addition a bunch of HFT shops and similar making a lot money off the volatility and order flow all this has…

I mean, some hedge funds are making money, sure. But the point is that, collectively , billions of wealth have so far been transferred from institutional investors to regular investors.

[deleted]

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#419

Post by hazeii »

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…

Planck's Principle: "Science advances one funeral at a time" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Re: Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

#420

Post by whimsicalism »

joncrane wrote: post #343
zaphod4prez wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclaimer I do NOT know what I'm talking about, just repeating what I saw on Twitter) It seems like they've all closed their shorts already, most of them did on like day 2 I believe. In addition, other hedge funds have been on the winning side of this trade. Some of the orders for GME last few days have been absolutely massive, not coming from retail.

I believe the statements were worded in such a way to try to make people believe that the short squeeze was no longer in play, but the short interest in fact never changed and maybe even went up. I believe they were also worded in a way to be technically correct (for example if they had multiple short positions, e.g. naked short calls, if they "closed their short position" that could mean they chose their smallest/ch…

> I believe the statements were worded in such a way to try to make people believe that the short squeeze was no longer in play, but the short interest in fact never changed and maybe even went up.

I've seen this "claim" all over the internet. It's not true. The statements released by Melvin Capital were unambiguous and of course short interest on Gamestop is going to go up when it surges to such high prices.

Post reply on HN