13 ms·

I picked one, EHOS. The price has been a solid $0.00 for over six years. 100% worthless Then a few days ago it suddenly jumps to $0.0013 Sounds like the SEC

by phire 6y ago

I picked one, EHOS. The price has been a solid $0.00 for over six years. 100% worthless Then a few days ago it suddenly jumps to $0.0013 Sounds like the SEC have found a bunch of social media accounts in the early stage of doing a classic Pump & Dump on worthless penny stocks. Nothing at all to do with WSB

Lammy 6y ago
Sounds more like the SEC have found a bunch of worthless penny stocks they can use to justify some new rules and regulations that will also conveniently affect the stocks that have been all over the news without directly citing those stocks since that would surely cause an uproar.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  Ding ding.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- celticninja 6y ago
  Yeah, it's like "yes we stopped GME being traded but also all these others, we aren't focussing on one stock here"
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    the sec didnt stop gme trading.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      Yet, is my point. If they do then they can say "Gme is not a special case"
      - creddit 6y ago
        What an insane pivot from the factual inaccuracy of “the SEC stopped GME trading.” Just admit you had no idea what you were spewing and move on.
        celticninja 6y ago
        I won't because I understand what I said. If your reading comprehension is so poor that is the fault of your education.
      - devin 6y ago
        The self-delusion required to think that any form of regulation is somehow an affront to your personal freedom is the hallmark of our broken society.
        delaaxe 6y ago
        Regulations go against personal freedom by definition
        baq 6y ago
        Don’t confuse freedom with anarchy
        serf 6y ago
        serious philosophical question that i'm uneducated about -- please don't mistake it as my arguing with your statement : what is the difference between total freedom and total anarchy? Regulation seems to hurt personal choice for the sake of personal security/well-being; anarchy being a state of total non-regulation then appears to be the state that is closest to the point where personal freedom has escalated to the highest level possible. Is this balanced by the opportunity that is awarded to those in a governed state that no longer exists for the person in a state of anarchy? In other words : does the freedom of choice that a structured government gives the individual PLUS the benefits of said society (roads, medicine, whatever) ensure greater freedom of personal choice compared to the person who lives in a state of non-regulated anarchy and isn't afforded opportunity by the infrastructure -- but is uninhibited by regulation? Is there any meaningful philosophical consensus on this idea, or is it by-and-large unanswered? I'm not really in-touch with the philosophy world.
    - trollski 6y ago
      which tells you things have to be _really_ bad out there. isn't that the first one that should be stopped? of course it is. but if that happens you can count positions up and then someone for sure is getting caught with pants down. and since had it been public sec wouldn't hesitate the only logical conclusion is that brokers and hedgies are in deep/existential trouble.
- tclancy 6y ago
  Sure, because what has been going on forever is the thing that just happened in the last month and not the age old scam. Hey, saying that out loud, it sounds like maybe you’d be interested in a random penny stock I heard good things about!
  - anm89 6y ago
    This is an obnoxious answer to a valid point.
    - anothernewdude 6y ago
      There aren't any new rules or regulations. It's a valid answer to an obnoxious "point"
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - anm89 6y ago
        you are referencing a sibling comment, not the parent.
        simonh 6y ago
        Lammy claimed new rules and regulations, that's directly up thread, not a sibling comment.
- dbt00 6y ago
  They aren't new rules or new regulations.
  - duemti 6y ago
    U naive.
thinkingemote 6y ago
Does that mean that there are automated trading accounts that just buy whatever people tweet about? Which in turn push the price higher? Is it like making link farms to game Google but in this case they are gaming the stock market? If so, the issue is the algorithm.
- awb 6y ago
  There are a few strategies that might be in play: sentiment analysis and technical analysis. Sentiment analysis does what you describe. Technical analysis is similar, but only looks at price movement and attempts to either follow or buck the trend. In these examples, a social media post could push the stock from $0.0001 to $0.0002. Maybe a sentiment algorithm sees the positive post and a technical analysis algorithm sees the positive price actions and confirms the upward momentum, triggering a purchase that moves the price to $0.0003. That 300% gain gets noticed by others and so on. Algorithms are really just a digital manifestation of group psychology. The same thing happens in a run on a bank, or a Tulip bubble. Word spreads and others follow.
- phire 6y ago
  I suspect this was just one or more discord/telegram pump&dump groups. They have been popular in the crypto-world for ages. It's a members only group, where a leader will pick a stock that the whole group will buy. Then at an agreed time, the whole group will hype the stock on (slightly more) public social media. If they hype it correctly, everyone sells at a profit after a fixed hold period. These groups might have a secret (or semi-secret) inner circle who get to see the decision before the main group. These people are able to profit from the main group even if the pump phase fails. It's possible the SEC has infiltrated one (or more) of these groups. Or they are are simply looking for trading patterns in dead penny stocks. There are plenty people who invest in pump&dump schemes fully knowing that it's a pump and dump. Because it's still possible to profit if you can predict the length of the pump and sell before the main dump.
- 8note 6y ago
  The Spiffing Britt on YouTube apparently has a bot that watches for anything musk tweets, buys some of it, then sells it again an hour or so
awb 6y ago
OK, but who are we protecting here? Someone who reads a social media post and makes an investment without doing any due diligence? That's 90% of WSB, seeing a ticker and rocket emoji and YOLOing into the latest stock because someone said it was going up. Why is this different? And these are OTC, pink slip stocks. Most major brokerages don't carry them and people who trade them know they're investing in distressed companies with low liquidity. Sure, go after the pump & dumpers, but it's not clear what the criteria is for halting trading on a stock. Risk is inherent in any investment. Don't invest what you're not willing to lose because you could lose everything. Your investment can always go to 0, wether it's in stocks, bonds, real estate or a business. And don't invest in what you don't understand.
- phire 6y ago
  The goal of the SEC is to ensure confidence in the stock market, to protect the stock market and the whole economy in general. They were primarily setup to avoid another great depression. They are operating under the assumption that the great depression was caused by a general loss of confidence in the stock market (and other types of investments) and that if they insure confidence, it will never happen again. They don't really care if an individual investor loses money. But pump&dump schemes prey on inexperienced noob investors and are very effective at pulling all their money away to experienced pump&dumpers. The SCE are worried that many noobs will experience such a scam and decide that investing isn't for them. This deprives the sock market of funds which the SEC considers bad. As for GME and WSB... well the SEC are in a bit of a tough spot. In general the SEC wants the stock price to match reality, and WSB's short-squeezes are clearly violating that. But if the SEC does anything to drive the share price back to normality then it looks like they are siding with big hedge funds and that really reduces the confidence of retail investors. I suspect they might eventually enforce a technical solution which provides live updates to the current status short positions. Such updates will mean that short squeezes can operate on the actual intelligence of short positions, rather than the wild speculation they are currently operating on. On the flip side, shorters will use the live updates to know when they are at risk of a short squeese.
  - lilott8 6y ago
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Question: if the price is literally zero, does that mean it can it be purchased for $0, that it's not for sale, or that there are literally no requests to buy it so the price can't be measured?
- dheera 6y ago
  Me too. If it's $0 can I "buy" a million shares of it?
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    No you can't. A bid/offer of 0x1/0.05x25 could be what you see (i.e. 25 shares available at the offer price of 0.05 and 0 shares available at 0 - no one wants this shit) on these garbage-quality companies. So there's no one bidding on it. So you could come in, place a bid at 0.025 and the updated OB would be like 0.025x1/0.05x25. If there's any autoquoters from the adversaries, then ok immediately they might throw some more offers up at like 0.045x100, since the interpretation of some bids coming in means that they can fill the orders at the tighter spread
    - shoshino 6y ago
      Your first example quote has an unfortunate typo. 0x1 should be 0x0
      - arthurcolle 6y ago
        yeah, press F to pay respects. Hopefully most are able to overcome the complexity of reconciling 0x0 == 0x1
- routerl 6y ago
  I have the same question, but think we can answer it by reasoning. If it could be purchased for $0, only the first stock would cost $0, and the price would then rise, but how would we calculate the price increase for a stock purchased at $0 that is now worth $0.1? So that's not it. If it were not for sale, why would it be listed? I think it's the third, and I'd further guess that any bid for the stock will be accepted, thus setting the price.
marcosdumay 6y ago
With the timing and everything, it looks a lot like SEC got a wake-up call, looked at it, and saw a bunch of clearly illegal things it should be acting on. So they are acting on them. If that's the case, good.
fastball 6y ago
Honestly kinda surprised the stock markets don't delist this stocks if they've been at ~$0.00 for 6 years.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  They have been delisted. But just because they've been delisted they don't cease to exist, so you can buy them OTC ("over the counter").
nojito 6y ago
They were on wsb. https://redditsearch.io/?term=Ehos%20&dataviz=false&aggs=false&subreddits=wallstreetbets&searchtype=comments&search=true&start=1582866733&end=1614402733&size=100 https://redditsearch.io/?term=Ehos%20&dataviz=false&aggs=fal...
- midasuni 6y ago
  One person ignored
audiometry 6y ago
What exchange is that even on then? It was worthless as in zero cents or zero-rounded cents

by phire 6y ago

Lammy 6y ago

Sounds more like the SEC have found a bunch of worthless penny stocks they can use to justify some new rules and regulations that will also conveniently affect the stocks that have been all over the news without directly citing those stocks since that would surely cause an uproar.

tarboreus 6y ago
Ding ding.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
celticninja 6y ago
Yeah, it's like "yes we stopped GME being traded but also all these others, we aren't focussing on one stock here"
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  the sec didnt stop gme trading.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    Yet, is my point. If they do then they can say "Gme is not a special case"
    - creddit 6y ago
      What an insane pivot from the factual inaccuracy of “the SEC stopped GME trading.” Just admit you had no idea what you were spewing and move on.
      - celticninja 6y ago
        I won't because I understand what I said. If your reading comprehension is so poor that is the fault of your education.
    - devin 6y ago
      The self-delusion required to think that any form of regulation is somehow an affront to your personal freedom is the hallmark of our broken society.
      - delaaxe 6y ago
        Regulations go against personal freedom by definition
        baq 6y ago
        Don’t confuse freedom with anarchy
        serf 6y ago
        serious philosophical question that i'm uneducated about -- please don't mistake it as my arguing with your statement : what is the difference between total freedom and total anarchy? Regulation seems to hurt personal choice for the sake of personal security/well-being; anarchy being a state of total non-regulation then appears to be the state that is closest to the point where personal freedom has escalated to the highest level possible. Is this balanced by the opportunity that is awarded to those in a governed state that no longer exists for the person in a state of anarchy? In other words : does the freedom of choice that a structured government gives the individual PLUS the benefits of said society (roads, medicine, whatever) ensure greater freedom of personal choice compared to the person who lives in a state of non-regulated anarchy and isn't afforded opportunity by the infrastructure -- but is uninhibited by regulation? Is there any meaningful philosophical consensus on this idea, or is it by-and-large unanswered? I'm not really in-touch with the philosophy world.
  - trollski 6y ago
    which tells you things have to be _really_ bad out there. isn't that the first one that should be stopped? of course it is. but if that happens you can count positions up and then someone for sure is getting caught with pants down. and since had it been public sec wouldn't hesitate the only logical conclusion is that brokers and hedgies are in deep/existential trouble.
tclancy 6y ago
Sure, because what has been going on forever is the thing that just happened in the last month and not the age old scam. Hey, saying that out loud, it sounds like maybe you’d be interested in a random penny stock I heard good things about!
- anm89 6y ago
  This is an obnoxious answer to a valid point.
  - anothernewdude 6y ago
    There aren't any new rules or regulations. It's a valid answer to an obnoxious "point"
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - anm89 6y ago
      you are referencing a sibling comment, not the parent.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Lammy claimed new rules and regulations, that's directly up thread, not a sibling comment.
dbt00 6y ago
They aren't new rules or new regulations.
- duemti 6y ago
  U naive.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Does that mean that there are automated trading accounts that just buy whatever people tweet about? Which in turn push the price higher? Is it like making link farms to game Google but in this case they are gaming the stock market? If so, the issue is the algorithm.

awb 6y ago
There are a few strategies that might be in play: sentiment analysis and technical analysis. Sentiment analysis does what you describe. Technical analysis is similar, but only looks at price movement and attempts to either follow or buck the trend. In these examples, a social media post could push the stock from $0.0001 to $0.0002. Maybe a sentiment algorithm sees the positive post and a technical analysis algorithm sees the positive price actions and confirms the upward momentum, triggering a purchase that moves the price to $0.0003. That 300% gain gets noticed by others and so on. Algorithms are really just a digital manifestation of group psychology. The same thing happens in a run on a bank, or a Tulip bubble. Word spreads and others follow.
phire 6y ago
I suspect this was just one or more discord/telegram pump&dump groups. They have been popular in the crypto-world for ages. It's a members only group, where a leader will pick a stock that the whole group will buy. Then at an agreed time, the whole group will hype the stock on (slightly more) public social media. If they hype it correctly, everyone sells at a profit after a fixed hold period. These groups might have a secret (or semi-secret) inner circle who get to see the decision before the main group. These people are able to profit from the main group even if the pump phase fails. It's possible the SEC has infiltrated one (or more) of these groups. Or they are are simply looking for trading patterns in dead penny stocks. There are plenty people who invest in pump&dump schemes fully knowing that it's a pump and dump. Because it's still possible to profit if you can predict the length of the pump and sell before the main dump.
8note 6y ago
The Spiffing Britt on YouTube apparently has a bot that watches for anything musk tweets, buys some of it, then sells it again an hour or so

awb 6y ago

OK, but who are we protecting here? Someone who reads a social media post and makes an investment without doing any due diligence? That's 90% of WSB, seeing a ticker and rocket emoji and YOLOing into the latest stock because someone said it was going up. Why is this different? And these are OTC, pink slip stocks. Most major brokerages don't carry them and people who trade them know they're investing in distressed companies with low liquidity. Sure, go after the pump & dumpers, but it's not clear what the criteria is for halting trading on a stock. Risk is inherent in any investment. Don't invest what you're not willing to lose because you could lose everything. Your investment can always go to 0, wether it's in stocks, bonds, real estate or a business. And don't invest in what you don't understand.

phire 6y ago
The goal of the SEC is to ensure confidence in the stock market, to protect the stock market and the whole economy in general. They were primarily setup to avoid another great depression. They are operating under the assumption that the great depression was caused by a general loss of confidence in the stock market (and other types of investments) and that if they insure confidence, it will never happen again. They don't really care if an individual investor loses money. But pump&dump schemes prey on inexperienced noob investors and are very effective at pulling all their money away to experienced pump&dumpers. The SCE are worried that many noobs will experience such a scam and decide that investing isn't for them. This deprives the sock market of funds which the SEC considers bad. As for GME and WSB... well the SEC are in a bit of a tough spot. In general the SEC wants the stock price to match reality, and WSB's short-squeezes are clearly violating that. But if the SEC does anything to drive the share price back to normality then it looks like they are siding with big hedge funds and that really reduces the confidence of retail investors. I suspect they might eventually enforce a technical solution which provides live updates to the current status short positions. Such updates will mean that short squeezes can operate on the actual intelligence of short positions, rather than the wild speculation they are currently operating on. On the flip side, shorters will use the live updates to know when they are at risk of a short squeese.
- lilott8 6y ago

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

Question: if the price is literally zero, does that mean it can it be purchased for $0, that it's not for sale, or that there are literally no requests to buy it so the price can't be measured?

dheera 6y ago
Me too. If it's $0 can I "buy" a million shares of it?
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  No you can't. A bid/offer of 0x1/0.05x25 could be what you see (i.e. 25 shares available at the offer price of 0.05 and 0 shares available at 0 - no one wants this shit) on these garbage-quality companies. So there's no one bidding on it. So you could come in, place a bid at 0.025 and the updated OB would be like 0.025x1/0.05x25. If there's any autoquoters from the adversaries, then ok immediately they might throw some more offers up at like 0.045x100, since the interpretation of some bids coming in means that they can fill the orders at the tighter spread
  - shoshino 6y ago
    Your first example quote has an unfortunate typo. 0x1 should be 0x0
    - arthurcolle 6y ago
      yeah, press F to pay respects. Hopefully most are able to overcome the complexity of reconciling 0x0 == 0x1
routerl 6y ago
I have the same question, but think we can answer it by reasoning. If it could be purchased for $0, only the first stock would cost $0, and the price would then rise, but how would we calculate the price increase for a stock purchased at $0 that is now worth $0.1? So that's not it. If it were not for sale, why would it be listed? I think it's the third, and I'd further guess that any bid for the stock will be accepted, thus setting the price.

marcosdumay 6y ago

With the timing and everything, it looks a lot like SEC got a wake-up call, looked at it, and saw a bunch of clearly illegal things it should be acting on. So they are acting on them. If that's the case, good.

fastball 6y ago

Honestly kinda surprised the stock markets don't delist this stocks if they've been at ~$0.00 for 6 years.

QuesnayJr 6y ago
They have been delisted. But just because they've been delisted they don't cease to exist, so you can buy them OTC ("over the counter").

nojito 6y ago

They were on wsb. https://redditsearch.io/?term=Ehos%20&dataviz=false&aggs=false&subreddits=wallstreetbets&searchtype=comments&search=true&start=1582866733&end=1614402733&size=100 https://redditsearch.io/?term=Ehos%20&dataviz=false&aggs=fal...

midasuni 6y ago
One person ignored

audiometry 6y ago

What exchange is that even on then? It was worthless as in zero cents or zero-rounded cents