3 ms·
Nah, no conspiracy. I just don't like that they can change their collateral requirement from 3% to 100% for specific stocks in one day, regardless of the reason
by sillysaurusx 6y ago
Nah, no conspiracy. I just don't like that they can change their collateral requirement from 3% to 100% for specific stocks in one day, regardless of the reasons.
To turn it around: should they have the authority to enforce a 33.3x collateral increase with no oversight simply because they feel it's necessary for the world to stop trading GME? This is the heart of what I hope will be regulated.
BTW, playing whiskey slaps was fun. It was nice to see the crazy pentester world, even if I had wrong expectations going in. Hope you've been well!
- icefrakker 6y agoYou think people should be prosecuted for doing something you don't like? That's pretty brave - I think the same about things I dislike but would never state it publicly.
- tptacek 6y agoI don't understand why you believe NSCC "felt it was necessary for the world to stop trading GME".
- baq 6y agothis one's easy: the financial world experienced a 7-sigma event for which institutions were unprepared for and somebody figured that it is worth pulling the emergency brake lever. for a few days GME was almost perfectly reveresly correlated with SP500 - there was a lot of derisking happening all at once. this couldn't all have been retail moving from SP500 to GME.