5 ms·

> The messages that Lebed posted would predict marked increases in the stocks value [...] In response to Lebed’s messages, trading volume of these stocks would

> The messages that Lebed posted would predict marked increases in the stocks value [...] In response to Lebed’s messages, trading volume of these stocks would soar I'm so confused reading the comments here. How in the world is anyone defending this?

darby_eight 3y ago
It's not hard to mock peoples' trust of the market.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> How in the world is anyone defending this? Suppose you're an ordinary trader who likes high risk bets. You find a stock you like, you buy some. Now you go on message boards telling everyone you think the stock is going to the moon straight away. This is your sincere belief. Soon the stock goes up 300%. You thought it was going to go up 1000%, that's what you said before, but hey, it still went up 300%, that's still a tidy profit, so you sell. Whether this is fraud or not basically hinges on whether you were being intentionally dishonest, right? But now how do you distinguish between malice and stupidity?
- dataflow 3y ago
  > Whether this is fraud or not basically hinges on whether you were being intentionally dishonest, right? No. Do you mean legally? or morally? Legally the offenses include things beyond what might strictly be "fraud" (see "fraud or deceit" as one example, but there are more [1]). IANAL, but failing to mention that your posts are with the hope of raising the price because you have a vested interest in that... seems like a material omission, if nothing else. Morally (and I'd expect legally based on the text, but IANAL) what matters is what he expected to happen as a result of his posts on the message board. If he knew people would likely buy the stock in response to his posts, and he intended to take advantage of that influence to make money off those sales, that's the end of the story. Whether he sincerely believed the stock would actually rise regardless is beside the point. > But now how do you distinguish between malice and stupidity? I'll assume you mean good faith because stupidity isn't in the picture here. Someone who's genuinely predicting the stock market correctly isn't stupid. Do you sincerely believe this person didn't expect his messages to raise the stock price, or that he didn't intend to take advantage of such a rise to make money off the stock sales? I sure don't. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77q https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77q
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > failing to mention that your posts are with the hope of raising the price because you have a vested interest in that... seems like a material omission, if nothing else. And if you run around telling people that you just bought some of the stock you think is going to the moon, is that supposed to make them less inclined to buy it, or do they now just think you're putting your money where your mouth is? > what matters is what he expected to happen as a result of his posts on the message board. Which is the problem. How do you prove what's inside of someone's head? Especially if they are malicious and know what not to say out loud. > Someone who's genuinely predicting the stock market correctly isn't stupid. If you think the stock is going up 1000% and it only goes up 300%, you were wrong, and your pick was wrong, and the people waiting for it to go up 1000% before selling are the people who lost money when it went back down. But as far as I know, being initially wrong and then changing your mind before you lose your money isn't illegal.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      I don't have the energy to dissect all this, but you're completely conflating legality, enforcement, and provability. We have juries for a reason. Most would a priori find it hard to believe that someone who found a winning strategy would repeatedly post it on random message boards with altruistic intent.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Juries need some basis on which to make a decision. The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. It's not clear why telling people you think a stock is going to go up after you've already bought it would require altruism, and more than that you would benefit by building a reputation as someone who makes accurate predictions if you turn out to be right, independent of whether anyone acts on your statement by buying the stock.
        hnfong 3y ago
- BrandonMarc 3y ago
  Brings to mind this quote from the film The Big Short: "Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested." (based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, a name I've seen elsewhere in these comments: go figure)
gnfargbl 3y ago
I'm equally confused, but in the other direction! He was acting without any special knowledge, so the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. That's usually legal, no?
- matwood 3y ago
  Talking your own book is basically CNBC in a nutshell.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. Like every conman, snake oil salesman, scammer, and fraudster. Why treat him any differently? He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. I can't imagine what this could possibly mean. What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards? If the problem was "posting messages on message boards" we'd all be just as guilty, but obviously that's not the case. That's like saying that someone who stabbed a person to death got punished for "using cutlery". People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email or the "pig butchers" who use SMS/MMS/social media.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. Mugging and scamming are definitely not the same. Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft, because the money/goods weren't handed over voluntarily. > He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email I'm not saying he's better or worse than anyone. I'm asking what tarring and feathering should actually mean.

darby_eight 3y ago

It's not hard to mock peoples' trust of the market.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> How in the world is anyone defending this? Suppose you're an ordinary trader who likes high risk bets. You find a stock you like, you buy some. Now you go on message boards telling everyone you think the stock is going to the moon straight away. This is your sincere belief. Soon the stock goes up 300%. You thought it was going to go up 1000%, that's what you said before, but hey, it still went up 300%, that's still a tidy profit, so you sell. Whether this is fraud or not basically hinges on whether you were being intentionally dishonest, right? But now how do you distinguish between malice and stupidity?

dataflow 3y ago
> Whether this is fraud or not basically hinges on whether you were being intentionally dishonest, right? No. Do you mean legally? or morally? Legally the offenses include things beyond what might strictly be "fraud" (see "fraud or deceit" as one example, but there are more [1]). IANAL, but failing to mention that your posts are with the hope of raising the price because you have a vested interest in that... seems like a material omission, if nothing else. Morally (and I'd expect legally based on the text, but IANAL) what matters is what he expected to happen as a result of his posts on the message board. If he knew people would likely buy the stock in response to his posts, and he intended to take advantage of that influence to make money off those sales, that's the end of the story. Whether he sincerely believed the stock would actually rise regardless is beside the point. > But now how do you distinguish between malice and stupidity? I'll assume you mean good faith because stupidity isn't in the picture here. Someone who's genuinely predicting the stock market correctly isn't stupid. Do you sincerely believe this person didn't expect his messages to raise the stock price, or that he didn't intend to take advantage of such a rise to make money off the stock sales? I sure don't. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77q https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77q
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > failing to mention that your posts are with the hope of raising the price because you have a vested interest in that... seems like a material omission, if nothing else. And if you run around telling people that you just bought some of the stock you think is going to the moon, is that supposed to make them less inclined to buy it, or do they now just think you're putting your money where your mouth is? > what matters is what he expected to happen as a result of his posts on the message board. Which is the problem. How do you prove what's inside of someone's head? Especially if they are malicious and know what not to say out loud. > Someone who's genuinely predicting the stock market correctly isn't stupid. If you think the stock is going up 1000% and it only goes up 300%, you were wrong, and your pick was wrong, and the people waiting for it to go up 1000% before selling are the people who lost money when it went back down. But as far as I know, being initially wrong and then changing your mind before you lose your money isn't illegal.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I don't have the energy to dissect all this, but you're completely conflating legality, enforcement, and provability. We have juries for a reason. Most would a priori find it hard to believe that someone who found a winning strategy would repeatedly post it on random message boards with altruistic intent.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Juries need some basis on which to make a decision. The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. It's not clear why telling people you think a stock is going to go up after you've already bought it would require altruism, and more than that you would benefit by building a reputation as someone who makes accurate predictions if you turn out to be right, independent of whether anyone acts on your statement by buying the stock.
      - hnfong 3y ago
BrandonMarc 3y ago
Brings to mind this quote from the film The Big Short: "Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested." (based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, a name I've seen elsewhere in these comments: go figure)

gnfargbl 3y ago

I'm equally confused, but in the other direction! He was acting without any special knowledge, so the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. That's usually legal, no?

matwood 3y ago
Talking your own book is basically CNBC in a nutshell.
autoexec 3y ago
> the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. Like every conman, snake oil salesman, scammer, and fraudster. Why treat him any differently? He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. I can't imagine what this could possibly mean. What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards? If the problem was "posting messages on message boards" we'd all be just as guilty, but obviously that's not the case. That's like saying that someone who stabbed a person to death got punished for "using cutlery". People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email or the "pig butchers" who use SMS/MMS/social media.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. Mugging and scamming are definitely not the same. Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft, because the money/goods weren't handed over voluntarily. > He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email I'm not saying he's better or worse than anyone. I'm asking what tarring and feathering should actually mean.