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

A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#61

Post by gruez »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #54
gruez wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they will change the rules on you so they win anyway Are you referring to how several popular brokerages prevented customers from opening new positions? That's due to them unable to fulfill deposit requirements on such volatile stocks, not because of some conspiracy by wall st to "change the rules on you so they win anyway". see: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit... , under heading "Why di…

"oh, now that you're winning, there's this extra unwritten rule that I forgot to tell you about..."

>extra unwritten rule

it's literally written. the average wsb user might not have known that discount brokerages were going to fail them, but it's hardly "changing the rules".

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#62

Post by gruez »

yomly wrote: post #57
gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guarantee you the interests of institutions on the short side of the stock factored in to the decision to raise deposit requirements. Is there any evidence for this, other than the general feeling of "rich people are powerful, therefore they must have been some meddling by them"? The formula for determining the deposit requirements is publicly documented: https://twitter.com/kralctrebor/status/1354952686165225478…

I find it curious when people give these institutions the benefit of the doubt. It flies in the face of the history of the industry and also what we know about basic human nature. I've moved around these types of social circles to know that any levers that can be pulled will be pulled. We also know that for large financial institutions, breaking the law is usually just a cost of doing business. Tangential, but GS was…

>I find it curious when people give these institutions the benefit of the doubt.

Is it any different than giving the election officials the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that The Establishment rigged the election? not that I support the election fraud claims, but it's an interesting parallel to what's happening here.

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#63

Post by coolgeek »

imgabe wrote: post #5

Gamestop made me think of this. The moral of the story is that when you beat Wall Street at their own game, they will change the rules on you so they win anyway. Something to be cautious about in the current situation.

> when you beat Wall Street at their own game, they will change the rules on you so they win anyway

It's not just Wall Street.

This explains the Republican demands for even more onerous voting restrictions. Even though those same Republicans have certified - under penalty of perjury - that there was effectively no fraud in the recent elections.

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#64

Post by yomly »

gruez wrote: post #62
yomly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it curious when people give these institutions the benefit of the doubt. It flies in the face of the history of the industry and also what we know about basic human nature. I've moved around these types of social circles to know that any levers that can be pulled will be pulled. We also know that for large financial institutions, breaking the law is usually just a cost of doing business. Tangential, but GS was…

>I find it curious when people give these institutions the benefit of the doubt. Is it any different than giving the election officials the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that The Establishment rigged the election? not that I support the election fraud claims, but it's an interesting parallel to what's happening here.

Fair enough. Would rather not get into that one, but the world of finance doesn't exactly have a good track record of playing nice or even by the rules...

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#65

Post by ummonk »

yomly wrote: post #57
gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guarantee you the interests of institutions on the short side of the stock factored in to the decision to raise deposit requirements. Is there any evidence for this, other than the general feeling of "rich people are powerful, therefore they must have been some meddling by them"? The formula for determining the deposit requirements is publicly documented: https://twitter.com/kralctrebor/status/1354952686165225478…

I find it curious when people give these institutions the benefit of the doubt. It flies in the face of the history of the industry and also what we know about basic human nature. I've moved around these types of social circles to know that any levers that can be pulled will be pulled. We also know that for large financial institutions, breaking the law is usually just a cost of doing business. Tangential, but GS was…

I suspect people who give these institutions the benefit of the doubt haven’t actually moved around in those circles. I certainly would have given them the benefit of the doubt 5 years ago when I didn’t actually know anyone from those institutions.

Re: A Corner in Piggly Wiggly (1959)

#66

Post by clankyclanker »

clankyclanker wrote: post #35
koolba wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moral of the story is that when you beat Wall Street at their own game, they will change the rules on you so they win anyway. They didn’t change the rules. The rules are clear that they’re allowed to change the rules anytime they want. That’s one of the rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvinball

That’s supposed to be a link to CalvinBall, but it didn’t quite work right.
Post reply on HN