4 ms·

Doesn't "securities fraud" require false information or at least misrepresenting information? The data cited in this (and many other posts) are often publicly v

Doesn't "securities fraud" require false information or at least misrepresenting information? The data cited in this (and many other posts) are often publicly verifiable but people didn't know where to look until then. It definitely looks like "market manipulation" but I think that's where the "public" aspect will play a part. The defense will make the case of "why this group of little guys and not the hedge funds" against the SEC selectively prosecuting Redditors while giving hedge funds a pass.. in 2009-2010 under Obama and again under Biden. I'll take the odds on WSB.

caffeine 6y ago
Market manipulation is defined as intentionally causing an artificial or misleading price in a security. This definitely qualifies, because the stated intention is to move the price of the shares, not to acquire a position for any other reasonable purpose. I work at a trading firm, if I outlined a plan to do anything like this I would (rightly) be fired instantly. If I actually did it I would go to jail. The law shouldn't be applied differently for redditors, but probably it will be.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  What's your opinion of Ackman going on CNBC in March and announcing that the world was ending, right AFTER he set up a giant hedge to short a bunch of industries. There are articles from March 2020 you can find. Regarding last week, what about the blocking of a number of symbols from being bought (but not sold) on retail platforms while the folks on the short side could unwind their positions? These were stocks with high short interest. How did Robinhood and IB and TD get the list, from analyzing Reddit in ML?
  - JackFr 6y ago
    Anytime a money manager goes on TV they it’s pretty safe to assume they’re talking there book. Markets are the one place we’re talking can make it happen. And even though you should assume this, CNBC and Ackman perform the legal dance of warning that he may have long or short positions in any or all things discussed etc. As to Robinhood, IB and TD, the Bloomberg reporting that DTCC (clearinghouse for trades) was demanding more collateral for the high volatility names and the retail brokers were facing a heard time coming up with it is pretty compelling. Unless someone can point to something other than innuendo, I’m probably gonna believe that.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Nope, the stated intention was to buy the shares before GME valuation rose from all the other factors listed. At many points the writer mentions it’s not a pump and dump, the stock’s fundamentals and management changes indicate it is undervalued, and the short interest creates a mechanical condition that will push it up to the “true” higher value - the writer mentions an intention to buy and hold, it will go up and stay high. The redditors have absolutely broken no laws, in fact there is not the slightest whiff of any reason to even suggest they might have. It’s just anger from wealth classes for having been embarrassed.
mike00632 6y ago
There is a concerted effort to misrepresent the short positions in GSE now. Not to mention tons of misinformation claiming that GameStop is actually a successful and valuable business. I'm not sure about the law but lies + financial interest often equals crime.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  *GME You're right. There was a concerted effort in the last week claiming that the hedge funds had closed their short positions. Turns out, a few had so GME went from 140% shorted way down to 130% shorted when historically, 25% is considered "high". I hope someone looks into the hedge funds and the talking heads who spread this misinformation.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Where are you getting those % values? And on what basis do you make the suggestion that Melvin still has a short?
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      1. The numbers are cited in almost every analysis of the situation this week. They've also been cited on WSB for months. Don't be lazy. 2. I didn't say any specific firm. I only know the aggregate numbers and the specifics on a couple and they're not one of them.
      - mike00632 6y ago
        1) Yes, I specifically pointed out that these numbers are being circulated everywhere. They are baseless and intentionally misleading. It might even amount to a crime. It matters that you can't vouch for these numbers despite repeating them yourself. 2) You intentionally used language that casts doubt on the only well-sourced statement, that Melvin got rid of their short position. If you're going to be so skeptical then I want to know why. If you think that CNBC is colluding with hedgefunds and intentionally publishing misinformation then I want to know why you are suggesting that.

caffeine 6y ago

Market manipulation is defined as intentionally causing an artificial or misleading price in a security. This definitely qualifies, because the stated intention is to move the price of the shares, not to acquire a position for any other reasonable purpose. I work at a trading firm, if I outlined a plan to do anything like this I would (rightly) be fired instantly. If I actually did it I would go to jail. The law shouldn't be applied differently for redditors, but probably it will be.

mancerayder 6y ago
What's your opinion of Ackman going on CNBC in March and announcing that the world was ending, right AFTER he set up a giant hedge to short a bunch of industries. There are articles from March 2020 you can find. Regarding last week, what about the blocking of a number of symbols from being bought (but not sold) on retail platforms while the folks on the short side could unwind their positions? These were stocks with high short interest. How did Robinhood and IB and TD get the list, from analyzing Reddit in ML?
- JackFr 6y ago
  Anytime a money manager goes on TV they it’s pretty safe to assume they’re talking there book. Markets are the one place we’re talking can make it happen. And even though you should assume this, CNBC and Ackman perform the legal dance of warning that he may have long or short positions in any or all things discussed etc. As to Robinhood, IB and TD, the Bloomberg reporting that DTCC (clearinghouse for trades) was demanding more collateral for the high volatility names and the retail brokers were facing a heard time coming up with it is pretty compelling. Unless someone can point to something other than innuendo, I’m probably gonna believe that.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Nope, the stated intention was to buy the shares before GME valuation rose from all the other factors listed. At many points the writer mentions it’s not a pump and dump, the stock’s fundamentals and management changes indicate it is undervalued, and the short interest creates a mechanical condition that will push it up to the “true” higher value - the writer mentions an intention to buy and hold, it will go up and stay high. The redditors have absolutely broken no laws, in fact there is not the slightest whiff of any reason to even suggest they might have. It’s just anger from wealth classes for having been embarrassed.

mike00632 6y ago

There is a concerted effort to misrepresent the short positions in GSE now. Not to mention tons of misinformation claiming that GameStop is actually a successful and valuable business. I'm not sure about the law but lies + financial interest often equals crime.

caseysoftware 6y ago
*GME You're right. There was a concerted effort in the last week claiming that the hedge funds had closed their short positions. Turns out, a few had so GME went from 140% shorted way down to 130% shorted when historically, 25% is considered "high". I hope someone looks into the hedge funds and the talking heads who spread this misinformation.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Where are you getting those % values? And on what basis do you make the suggestion that Melvin still has a short?
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    1. The numbers are cited in almost every analysis of the situation this week. They've also been cited on WSB for months. Don't be lazy. 2. I didn't say any specific firm. I only know the aggregate numbers and the specifics on a couple and they're not one of them.
    - mike00632 6y ago
      1) Yes, I specifically pointed out that these numbers are being circulated everywhere. They are baseless and intentionally misleading. It might even amount to a crime. It matters that you can't vouch for these numbers despite repeating them yourself. 2) You intentionally used language that casts doubt on the only well-sourced statement, that Melvin got rid of their short position. If you're going to be so skeptical then I want to know why. If you think that CNBC is colluding with hedgefunds and intentionally publishing misinformation then I want to know why you are suggesting that.