3 ms·

> Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition. Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction

> Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition. Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction in the past between "real demand" (i.e. demand motivated because you think the stock is undervalued) and "artificial demand" (i.e. demand that is not based on any underlying analysis, but instead motivated because you intend to trigger other market mechanisms, including coverings of short positions). Like most legal definitions, the actual definition is hazy, and courts may have established legal tests. Read Matt Levine for a nuanced analysis [1]. Again, not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-w...

baybal2 6y ago
And every time, an effort to judge whose demand is more real that other ends up with absurd, scandalous legal rulings. They should not be. These guys have full understanding how laughable it the attempt to judge somebody by pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind, and yet they do it.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  > pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind But historical cases don't peer into people's minds. They look at evidence, such as texts in chat rooms that show clear intent to manipulate. See the Libor scandal chats [1], where one trader wrote "its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money" and "its a cartel now in london." I think it's unlikely that the SEC will be able to successfully prosecute WSB traders, though, due to lack of evidence. It's also probably not even worth their time. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-banks-want-to-get-their-traders-out-of-chatrooms https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-bank...

baybal2 6y ago

And every time, an effort to judge whose demand is more real that other ends up with absurd, scandalous legal rulings. They should not be. These guys have full understanding how laughable it the attempt to judge somebody by pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind, and yet they do it.

tylerhou 6y ago
> pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind But historical cases don't peer into people's minds. They look at evidence, such as texts in chat rooms that show clear intent to manipulate. See the Libor scandal chats [1], where one trader wrote "its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money" and "its a cartel now in london." I think it's unlikely that the SEC will be able to successfully prosecute WSB traders, though, due to lack of evidence. It's also probably not even worth their time. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-banks-want-to-get-their-traders-out-of-chatrooms https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-bank...