5 ms·

Charge everyone with market manipulation the same way that everyone who caused the 2008 recession was charged? Sincere question, because if they decide to charg

Charge everyone with market manipulation the same way that everyone who caused the 2008 recession was charged? Sincere question, because if they decide to charge individual investors who commented on a Reddit thread with market manipulation after my generation witnessed the downfall of the economy due to sheer lies and blatant manipulation by banks, with no major charges against anyone of importance, I, at least, will be very angry.

caffeine 6y ago
I am not against charging certain actors in the 2008 crisis with fraud and manipulation either. The 2008 recession is not really a comparable event to the current GME short squeeze. It was rather a broad series of events, most of which were unfortunately legal, some of which were probably not. In that case I would be in favour of charging the ratings agencies with fraud, and possibly the financial regulators with gross incompetence. Edit: I don't see it as "big guys vs small guys". I see it as "law abiding people vs not". So my reaction is not "its unfair to prosecute the little guy," but rather "we didnt get those criminals but at least we can get these criminals."
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  its funny how its always a certain class of people "we didn't get", the answer isn't to shrug your shoulders and say oh well.
  - caffeine 6y ago
    It's not too late to get those people too.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  What a very convenient point of view for the people above the law. I hope they're passing some of their gains on to you.
  - caffeine 6y ago
    I voted for Obama twice. But his failure to properly prosecute the bad actors in 2008 was one of the biggest failures of his presidency in my opinion. However: 1) It's still not too late to go after those people. Some NY DA should make his career on this. 2) The biggest financial crime ever has been the years of unmitigated QE which has consistently taken money from the income-earning class and handed it to the wealthy asset holding class. This is a bigger travesty than all other financial crimes. Not clear what to do about it, there is nobody you can vote for who thinks it should end.
    - niktwazny 6y ago
      I believe you don't give enough credit to the scope of this pump and dump. 2008 was, more or less, a local US problem. Very few outsiders had their money in it. This one has the rest of the world's money involved as well. And that, in my opinion, moves the center of gravity of that issue into different territory. Resentment. Some involved in that raid are in it for the pain it causes those hedge funds, not for the money ( no matter how little true believers there are ). If US punishes those kids, that resentment will only grow, and it'll grow among those not in US. The growth of us vs them mentality is the last thing anyone needs
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Do you think that something like "Elon Musk tweets the word 'bitcoin'" can/should actually be charged as market manipulation? What about people selling their newsletter of stock tips? What about printing an article in Bloomberg suggesting that XYZ is undervalued/overvalued for $reasons? What about some nobody on reddit posting to wsb to say let's go to $321! What about being paid to tell clients what you think they should invest in? What about telling other users on reddit for free what you think they should invest in? I'm not sure I see a clear line in there to call any of it illegal.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    I feel like this question is a trap, but I'm bored, so I'll give it a shot. First off, not all "market manipulation" is illegal. If it was, a company announcing a new product would be "market manipulation", because it impacts the stock price. But I think you're right that the line is definitely grey in a lot of situations. And really, that's why we have courts. > Do you think that something like "Elon Musk tweets the word 'bitcoin'" can/should actually be charged as market manipulation? If Elon Musk had just bought a whole bunch of bitcoin, then tweeted it out, and then sold his newly acquired bitcoin, then yes. He 100% knows that what he tweets affects markets, and attempted to directly benefit from it. If you want to argue that he doesn't know that his tweets affect the market, the SEC has already determined that it does based on the "TSLA private at 420" situation. > What about people selling their newsletter of stock tips? Market manipulation requires actual market manipulation. I dno't believe that "attempted market manipulation" counts (but I may be wrong). All of these newsletter attempts fail, so there's nothing to really charge. If any of these newsletters actually have a measurable effect, or if the person sending them is buying-sending-selling (at a profit), then yes, it is market manipulation. > What about printing an article in Bloomberg suggesting that XYZ is undervalued/overvalued for $reasons This is kind of what Bloomberg does, and they typically have arguments in both directions (which I think kind of evens it out). That being said, true information, with real evidence, is not illegal market manipulation. DFV's initial "due diligence" and legitimate bull case are not illegal market manipulation. > What about some nobody on reddit posting to wsb to say let's go to $321! Now you're getting grey. I'm not qualified to answer. This answer will likely be very similar to whether or not something is "inciting a riot", and will be super context-dependent. But note that this is different than saying "GME is going to $1000 because of <totally false and made up reasons>" (especially if you already have a position, and if you make a profit as a result of the market that you influenced. Remember, if you don't actually influence the market, then it doesn't count. But whether or not you succeeded in influencing the market can easily be determined after-the-fact. Just because you get away with it in the moment, doesn't mean no one will look back. > What about being paid to tell clients what you think they should invest in? If this is your job, you are likely licenced in some way, and the rules are likely different. > What about telling other users on reddit for free what you think they should invest in? I think the answer here is the same as the WSB-specific question --- Feel free to disagree with me, these are just my opinions, and again, context matters.

caffeine 6y ago

I am not against charging certain actors in the 2008 crisis with fraud and manipulation either. The 2008 recession is not really a comparable event to the current GME short squeeze. It was rather a broad series of events, most of which were unfortunately legal, some of which were probably not. In that case I would be in favour of charging the ratings agencies with fraud, and possibly the financial regulators with gross incompetence. Edit: I don't see it as "big guys vs small guys". I see it as "law abiding people vs not". So my reaction is not "its unfair to prosecute the little guy," but rather "we didnt get those criminals but at least we can get these criminals."

throwaway2048 6y ago
its funny how its always a certain class of people "we didn't get", the answer isn't to shrug your shoulders and say oh well.
- caffeine 6y ago
  It's not too late to get those people too.
morlockabove 6y ago
What a very convenient point of view for the people above the law. I hope they're passing some of their gains on to you.
- caffeine 6y ago
  I voted for Obama twice. But his failure to properly prosecute the bad actors in 2008 was one of the biggest failures of his presidency in my opinion. However: 1) It's still not too late to go after those people. Some NY DA should make his career on this. 2) The biggest financial crime ever has been the years of unmitigated QE which has consistently taken money from the income-earning class and handed it to the wealthy asset holding class. This is a bigger travesty than all other financial crimes. Not clear what to do about it, there is nobody you can vote for who thinks it should end.
  - niktwazny 6y ago
    I believe you don't give enough credit to the scope of this pump and dump. 2008 was, more or less, a local US problem. Very few outsiders had their money in it. This one has the rest of the world's money involved as well. And that, in my opinion, moves the center of gravity of that issue into different territory. Resentment. Some involved in that raid are in it for the pain it causes those hedge funds, not for the money ( no matter how little true believers there are ). If US punishes those kids, that resentment will only grow, and it'll grow among those not in US. The growth of us vs them mentality is the last thing anyone needs
lazyasciiart 6y ago
Do you think that something like "Elon Musk tweets the word 'bitcoin'" can/should actually be charged as market manipulation? What about people selling their newsletter of stock tips? What about printing an article in Bloomberg suggesting that XYZ is undervalued/overvalued for $reasons? What about some nobody on reddit posting to wsb to say let's go to $321! What about being paid to tell clients what you think they should invest in? What about telling other users on reddit for free what you think they should invest in? I'm not sure I see a clear line in there to call any of it illegal.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  I feel like this question is a trap, but I'm bored, so I'll give it a shot. First off, not all "market manipulation" is illegal. If it was, a company announcing a new product would be "market manipulation", because it impacts the stock price. But I think you're right that the line is definitely grey in a lot of situations. And really, that's why we have courts. > Do you think that something like "Elon Musk tweets the word 'bitcoin'" can/should actually be charged as market manipulation? If Elon Musk had just bought a whole bunch of bitcoin, then tweeted it out, and then sold his newly acquired bitcoin, then yes. He 100% knows that what he tweets affects markets, and attempted to directly benefit from it. If you want to argue that he doesn't know that his tweets affect the market, the SEC has already determined that it does based on the "TSLA private at 420" situation. > What about people selling their newsletter of stock tips? Market manipulation requires actual market manipulation. I dno't believe that "attempted market manipulation" counts (but I may be wrong). All of these newsletter attempts fail, so there's nothing to really charge. If any of these newsletters actually have a measurable effect, or if the person sending them is buying-sending-selling (at a profit), then yes, it is market manipulation. > What about printing an article in Bloomberg suggesting that XYZ is undervalued/overvalued for $reasons This is kind of what Bloomberg does, and they typically have arguments in both directions (which I think kind of evens it out). That being said, true information, with real evidence, is not illegal market manipulation. DFV's initial "due diligence" and legitimate bull case are not illegal market manipulation. > What about some nobody on reddit posting to wsb to say let's go to $321! Now you're getting grey. I'm not qualified to answer. This answer will likely be very similar to whether or not something is "inciting a riot", and will be super context-dependent. But note that this is different than saying "GME is going to $1000 because of <totally false and made up reasons>" (especially if you already have a position, and if you make a profit as a result of the market that you influenced. Remember, if you don't actually influence the market, then it doesn't count. But whether or not you succeeded in influencing the market can easily be determined after-the-fact. Just because you get away with it in the moment, doesn't mean no one will look back. > What about being paid to tell clients what you think they should invest in? If this is your job, you are likely licenced in some way, and the rules are likely different. > What about telling other users on reddit for free what you think they should invest in? I think the answer here is the same as the WSB-specific question --- Feel free to disagree with me, these are just my opinions, and again, context matters.