5 ms·
This will probably be my least popular post ever, but the explanation needs to get out there for why Robinhood stopped trading on GME. Selling a stock short is
by silexia 6y ago
This will probably be my least popular post ever, but the explanation needs to get out there for why Robinhood stopped trading on GME.
Selling a stock short is NOT illegal. It is a perfectly valid type of investment according to the SEC:
“D. Are short sales legal?
Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, abusive short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading in a security or to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales effected to manipulate the price of a stock are prohibited.”
Basically – you can’t short sell a stock to manipulate the price down so you can buy a lot more of it later. If you believe a stock is overpriced and short sell it, that is legal. That is exactly what tons of retail traders and hedge funds do every day, including on Gamestop.
On the other hand, manipulating a stock price upwards to cause a short squeeze IS illegal according to the same SEC article:
“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.”
Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week. No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”. That is illegal according to the SEC.
Multiple brokerages, especially Robinhood, probably had their attorneys tell them that “Hey, you are aiding and abetting illegal activity by enabling a short squeeze and could be liable criminally or civilly if you continue to allow this blatant illegal activity on your platform”. So they decided to stop it by only allowing people to close their positions rather than open new ones in support of the short squeeze.
Another strong reason is that if the short squeeze caused the GME stock to go to 5000 in a sudden leap, tons of traders (both retail and professional) could instantly go broke, and then the brokerage (Robinhood) would be left holding the bag. For example, picture a retail investor with a Robinhood account had sold call options in the amount of $100,000 and their account was worth $200,000. If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000. Now multiply that by thousands of accounts…. no brokerage wants to take the risk of being bankrupted, so they shut it down.
The two strong reasons Robinhood and other brokers stopped trading was to prevent legal liability from enabling illegal activity on their platform, and for wanting to avoid potentially massive banktuptcy from traders unable to cover their losses.
- nawgz 6y agoShill. Still waiting for you to answer for a quote you have made up[0]: > most short positions are actually held by retail investors [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119
- silexia 6y agoOnce again, I am not a shill as you keep posting on my comments. I am a real person and my blog is here - joelx.com. I have an opinion that is different than yours. I have no dog in this game. Do you hold any positions related the question at hand? Are you trying to pump & dump the stock?
- Phlarp 6y agoI don't have a position related to the question at hand, but I've certainly been observing closely over the last few days and for me personally it's pretty hard to shake the perception that a subreddit mostly specializing in financial market memes beat "the man" at his own game and now "the man" is changing the rules. Meanwhile you're jumping on internet message boards to try and explain how "the man" is actually totally right in this situation and everyone should really go back to dutifully enriching him without questions.
- nawgz 6y agoI hold no positions related to the questions at hand. You however have gone from a random blogger who speaks largely about tech & politics and now is quite invested in defending a very crooked appearing move, all while making claims you can't support.
- nawgz 6y agoIn response to this accusation [0], this user has linked a document [1] which shows the exact opposite of his claims [2]. Please do not downvote me for calling out strange activity by an account which is also spreading misinformation. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119 [1]: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ptetlock/papers/Kelley_Tetlock_May16_Retail_Short_Selling_and_Stock_Prices.pdf https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ptetlock/papers/Kelley... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950657