Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 216 posts

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#51

Post by aikinai »

dagmx wrote: post #17
tape_measure wrote: post #2

RoaringKitty is also known as DeepFuckingValue. This name is probably more well known to the general public, but Reuters does not mention it.

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 don’t think that’s true. Yes, anyone aware of or involved in the story knows DeepFuckingValue, but I often see people online—even people who worship him as their hero—surprised that he’s not some mysterious figure, but had been putting out YouTube videos for months. His videos still have shockingly low view counts considering how famous and pivotal a figure he’s become.

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#52

Post by Xenograph »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #38

What about Musk making tweets about bitcoin whilst his company has a large investment. Isn't that market manipulation or maybe does not apply to rogue billionaires.

It is market manipulation, of course, but it's not the kind that's illegal.

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#53

Post by tauwauwau »

voiper1 wrote: post #36
csours wrote: post #25

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…

If they required 100% collateral, why did that mean Robinhood stopped trades? Why couldn't they allow trades with 100% settled funds?

This episode of Planet Money should shed some light on it. What I understand from this episode is that there's a 2 day delay in settling trades, that's why clearing house exists.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/02/963466346/robinhoods-very-bad...

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#55

Post by ummonk »

tptacek wrote: post #16
sillysaurusx wrote: post #10

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…

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.

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#56

Post by ummonk »

chrisco255 wrote: post #34
ivalm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there were no offenders. DTCC raising collateral requirements on an ultravoltile stock with a high chance of price collapse is just... a reasonable thing to do?

Do they have a prepublished volatility-collateral chart that applies for this and all similar scenarios or was this an adhoc rule change made arbitrarily this one time? Can you show another volatile time where similar action was taken?

It was an arbitrary decision. And one which they neglected to notify the general public of.

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#57

Post by TameAntelope »

chrisco255 wrote: post #34
ivalm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there were no offenders. DTCC raising collateral requirements on an ultravoltile stock with a high chance of price collapse is just... a reasonable thing to do?

Do they have a prepublished volatility-collateral chart that applies for this and all similar scenarios or was this an adhoc rule change made arbitrarily this one time? Can you show another volatile time where similar action was taken?

Heh, that's a lot of work you're asking a stranger to do for you...

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#58

Post by arcturus17 »

1f60c wrote: post #37
dagmx wrote: post #17

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.

Same. Or rather, I had vaguely heard Roaring Kitty but didn’t know it was the same person. Learned it just now.

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#59

Post by jbverschoor »

tape_measure wrote: post #2

RoaringKitty is also known as DeepFuckingValue. This name is probably more well known to the general public, but Reuters does not mention it.

Yeah, but that's gonna be sensored out of every US channel dee-beep-lue

Re: Roaring Kitty to testify on GameStop alongside hedge fund managers

#60

Post by emteycz »

TameAntelope wrote: post #57
chrisco255 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have a prepublished volatility-collateral chart that applies for this and all similar scenarios or was this an adhoc rule change made arbitrarily this one time? Can you show another volatile time where similar action was taken?

Heh, that's a lot of work you're asking a stranger to do for you...

There's no work to be done, the answer is no.
Post reply on HN