4 ms·

This is unlikely. The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. The NASDAQ CEO, Anna F

This is unlikely. The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. The NASDAQ CEO, Anna Friedman has already said they will stop trading on a stock if they match chatter from social media with a stock's movement. Her justification is to allow them "time to investigate" the situation. SEC lawyers have stated also that justification for investigation come when "volatile trading fuelled by opinions where there appears to be little corporate activity to justify [price movements]". It's a ridiculous assertion since several banks and funds use alternate data sources to inform their buy and sell decisions. These alternate, or non-traditional, sources of data are usually many steps removed from corporate company announcements and news headlines. Saying all that to say that legal positions are shoring up on the side of the exchanges and professionals.

EVdotIO 6y ago
Are they going to start monitoring Bloomberg chat now as well?
- jaywalk 6y ago
  No, of course not. It's perfectly fine when they do it.
- vergessenmir 6y ago
  Of course not. They're probably just going to wait until this blows over and get back to business as usual. The way it's panning out now they probably won't go down the regulatory route. They already have levers that they can pull if the behaviour happens again, through the platform (Robinhood and the like) limiting trading or having Reddit or Discord ban or suspend groups on spurious grounds such as hate speech. Why go down the legal route when you can give a soft nudge to board members and still get the desired outcome?
arminiusreturns 6y ago
> The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. I call BS. I mean you might be right that they are on the side of the institutions, but it's not because retail is unusual, it's because it's a big old boys club and they don't want the plebs getting uppity. MM's exposed themselves by massively naked short selling into very risky territory, which is illegal and what the regulators should be more interested in, as it is what enabled all this to happen in the first place!(1) It's well known that the SEC is a toothless wonder that doesn't go after the malfeasance right under it's nose but loves to go after middle and low end people, with maybe a smattering of high profiles just for the optics (come to think of it, very much like the IRS). The legal system is part of that corruption. So you may be right that the legal positions are shoring up on their side (though I think its very possible you are wrong), but that doesn't make it the right, or just, state of things! I think we are living in a moment of history that will lay bare just how abusive and illegally manipulative the whole system is against retail and there is going to be a backlash that isn't inconsequential. [1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm

EVdotIO 6y ago

Are they going to start monitoring Bloomberg chat now as well?

jaywalk 6y ago
No, of course not. It's perfectly fine when they do it.
vergessenmir 6y ago
Of course not. They're probably just going to wait until this blows over and get back to business as usual. The way it's panning out now they probably won't go down the regulatory route. They already have levers that they can pull if the behaviour happens again, through the platform (Robinhood and the like) limiting trading or having Reddit or Discord ban or suspend groups on spurious grounds such as hate speech. Why go down the legal route when you can give a soft nudge to board members and still get the desired outcome?

arminiusreturns 6y ago

> The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. I call BS. I mean you might be right that they are on the side of the institutions, but it's not because retail is unusual, it's because it's a big old boys club and they don't want the plebs getting uppity. MM's exposed themselves by massively naked short selling into very risky territory, which is illegal and what the regulators should be more interested in, as it is what enabled all this to happen in the first place!(1) It's well known that the SEC is a toothless wonder that doesn't go after the malfeasance right under it's nose but loves to go after middle and low end people, with maybe a smattering of high profiles just for the optics (come to think of it, very much like the IRS). The legal system is part of that corruption. So you may be right that the legal positions are shoring up on their side (though I think its very possible you are wrong), but that doesn't make it the right, or just, state of things! I think we are living in a moment of history that will lay bare just how abusive and illegally manipulative the whole system is against retail and there is going to be a backlash that isn't inconsequential. [1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm