3 ms·
Regarding the data in question you are completely right but the unusually high numbers reported suggest possible naked short selling or a systematic lack of liq
by CTDOCodebases 6y ago
Regarding the data in question you are completely right but the unusually high numbers reported suggest possible naked short selling or a systematic lack of liquidity for that particular stock.
If what’s going on is naked short selling by those who are not market makers then it’s illegal and those who are doing it need to be prosecuted.
If what’s going on is due to a lack of liquidity then it suggest that price manipulation could be occurring in the form of excessive coordinated short selling.
Finally - why assume a government agency is competent and has the means and resources required to act in a timely manner? The issue was reported though. [0]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/kr98ym/gme_gang_we_need_to_complain_about_naked_short https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/kr98ym/gme_...
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Finally - why assume a government agency is competent and has the means and resources required to act in a timely manner? That's not the assumption. The assumption is that facts manually assembled and reported by a government agency are already within the knowledge of that agency, so even if they don't have “the means and resources required to act in a timely manner”, you aren't helping by reporting those facts back to them. (This may also be an unwarranted assumption , but it's a different assumption than you describe. I've definitely in the past—on behalf of a different government agency—frequently been involved in reporting facts assembled by one office of a government agency to the parties responsible for acting on that information in another office of the same agency who hadn't been informed of it.)