4 ms·

That's not a factual claim, it's a subjective statement. "Some penny stock transactions are fraudulent" is a factual claim, though not a very interesting one. "

That's not a factual claim, it's a subjective statement. "Some penny stock transactions are fraudulent" is a factual claim, though not a very interesting one. "The SEC estimates that X% of penny stock transactions are fraudulent" is a stronger factual claim.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
The growing frequency and magnitude of fraud in the penny stock market is absolutely a factual claim. It would be better if the article made it explicitly. But it's implicitly there, albeit only anecdotally substantiated. The SEC is chronically underfunded. A compelling anecdote in the press isn't an uncommon way for an investigation to start. In that light, this article is an expression of a hypothesis.
- rcoveson 6y ago
  > The frequency and magnitude of fraud in the penny stock market is absolutely a factual claim. Yes, that's exactly what I said. However, the article doesn't make any such claim. Or maybe I missed it, because it was "implicit". What frequency or magnitude of fraud was claimed by the article? "A lot" doesn't cut it. That can mean anything to anyone.
Apocryphon 6y ago
What's actually factual is the NYT says > But last month, there were 1.9 trillion transactions on O.T.C. markets, an increase of more than 2,000 percent from a year earlier, according to data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory group that oversees brokerage firms. And > A 2017 paper from Thomas Renault, a finance professor at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, analyzed millions of Twitter messages about low-priced stocks. A surge in tweets about a small stock led to big price increases followed by sudden collapses, he found, saying the pattern was consistent with pump-and-dump schemes. Granted, the rest of the article is mostly quotes from ex-SEC regulators, investors, economists, Jordan Belfort; anecdotes about a few OTC stock scams; and an explanation of what pump and dump schemes are. But this whole discussion is oversimplifying the article, assigning motives where there doesn't seem to be one.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

The growing frequency and magnitude of fraud in the penny stock market is absolutely a factual claim. It would be better if the article made it explicitly. But it's implicitly there, albeit only anecdotally substantiated. The SEC is chronically underfunded. A compelling anecdote in the press isn't an uncommon way for an investigation to start. In that light, this article is an expression of a hypothesis.

rcoveson 6y ago
> The frequency and magnitude of fraud in the penny stock market is absolutely a factual claim. Yes, that's exactly what I said. However, the article doesn't make any such claim. Or maybe I missed it, because it was "implicit". What frequency or magnitude of fraud was claimed by the article? "A lot" doesn't cut it. That can mean anything to anyone.

Apocryphon 6y ago

What's actually factual is the NYT says > But last month, there were 1.9 trillion transactions on O.T.C. markets, an increase of more than 2,000 percent from a year earlier, according to data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory group that oversees brokerage firms. And > A 2017 paper from Thomas Renault, a finance professor at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, analyzed millions of Twitter messages about low-priced stocks. A surge in tweets about a small stock led to big price increases followed by sudden collapses, he found, saying the pattern was consistent with pump-and-dump schemes. Granted, the rest of the article is mostly quotes from ex-SEC regulators, investors, economists, Jordan Belfort; anecdotes about a few OTC stock scams; and an explanation of what pump and dump schemes are. But this whole discussion is oversimplifying the article, assigning motives where there doesn't seem to be one.