4 ms·

I don't really think he'll lose access, but they are absolutely in contact with the SEC and there is a non zero chance he gets charged with market manipulation.

cwbriscoe 2y ago
For what? Posting his position? If that is the case half of the superstonks subreddit would have to be charged.
- richbell 2y ago
  > If that is the case half of the superstonks subreddit would have to be charged. You could make a compelling argument that they should be. Superstonks doesn't just post their positions. They, too, try to manipulate the market by hyping up GME. I would highly recommend "This is Financial Advice" by Dan Olson to anyone not already familiar with the community. https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    Superstonks isn’t a parody?
    - therobots927 2y ago
      This is an anon account so I feel safe to admit this. I used to buy into all of that stuff. Basically the (conspiracy) theory is that market makers sold shares in GameStop that didn’t exist. There’s an element of truth to this, at least during 2021 it was confirmed that market makers had collectively sold more call options than they could possibly hedge with shares. But regardless, in order to prove this everyone in superstore started registering their shares with a transfer agent. The number of shares registered was reported by GameStop every quarter. Throughout 2022 I think the number of shares registered linearly before it plateaued at about 25% of the public number of total shares of GameStop. I might be conspiracy oriented but I’m also a believer in science and to me this cast a significant amount of doubt on the theory. Anyways, it’s definitely not a parody and I feel sorry for people who didn’t wake up like I did. I think something like 200,000 people registered their shares, that number also plateaued. I don’t think the GME craze was good for anyone but the company itself and roaring kitty.
      - DANmode 2y ago
        That all shareholders did not register on ComputerShare or whatever is what leads you to no longer buy into...what, precisely?
        therobots927 2y ago
        The idea that the stock was being sold short with fake shares.
        CrazyStat 2y ago
        Selling call options is not short selling though.
        therobots927 2y ago
        If you’re not hedging by buying enough shares to provide when they exercise it might as well be.
        DANmode 2y ago
        I followed that wrinkle pretty closely. I was surprised to hear how high the number stated was (25%). I do not see the connection between that movement achieving <100%, and there being no fraud committed in claimed assets in the finance world. Especially in that case. And I can’t, frankly, see how you drew that connection either.
        therobots927 2y ago
        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence sure. But it sure ain’t proof of anything either. If you’re going to make an outrageous claim you need to prove it.
        DANmode 2y ago
        There were more shares being claimed than were owned. What more is there to prove? It's not even unusual to do. Explainer: How were more than 100% of GameStop’s shares shorted? NEW YORK, Feb 18 (Reuters) - One area of focus from a U.S. House of Representatives panel on Thursday will likely be on the role short selling played in the GameStop (GME.N), opens new tab market mayhem. Executives from trading platform Robinhood and hedge funds Melvin Capital and Citadel will be grilled following the retail-driven trading frenzy that sparked wild gyrations in GameStop and other heavily shorted stocks. Short selling, details of which are included in the memorandum, opens new tab about the hearing, can be a positive move, as it can be used in hedging positions, more accurately valuing prices of stocks and exposing frauds, like Enron and Theranos. But Vlad Tenev, broker Robinhood's chief executive officer, recently pointed out that some of the stocks involved in the "meme stock" rally were more than 100% shorted, implying that more shares were shorted than were available to trade. "I just think that's pathological," he said on the All-In Podcast, opens new tab late last Friday. "You end up with this situation that could destabilize the financial markets." HOW DOES SHORT SELLING WORK? Advertisement · Scroll to continue Typically, shorting a stock is a bet that the share price is going to fall. Short sellers borrow shares from brokers and then sell them into the market, with the agreement that they will buy the shares back and return them to the lender at an agreed upon time. The shares can come from the brokers' own inventories, or from customers that have allowed the brokers to lend out their shares. When it's time to return the shares, if the stock price has fallen, the short seller can buy the shares back at a lower price than they originally paid for them, locking in a profit. If the price has risen, the short seller must buy back the shares at the higher price, incurring a loss. In the meantime, the short seller pays the lender interest on the value of the stock, giving the lender extra income. IS IT RISKY TO LEND OUT SHARES? Not really. The borrower posts collateral, typically, opens new tab 102% of the prior day's settlement price. The borrower can also request the shares back at any time. Advertisement · Scroll to continue HOW CAN MORE THAN 100% OF A COMPANY'S SHARES BE SHORTED? Once the short seller borrows the shares from the lender and then sells them back into the market, the new owner of the shares is free to lend them out, just as the previous owner did, and have no idea they are on the other side of a short sale. Settlement time is two days after the transaction. In that time, the same shares can be lent out again, and again. This makes it possible, on paper, for more than 100% of the float of a stock to be shorted. According to financial analytics firm S3, GameStop's peak short interest was 141.8% of its float on Jan. 4. S3 argued in a recent research note that the traditional method of calculating the percentage of float is flawed because it uses stale data. U.S. investors are required to mark their shares shorted and regulators report these figures twice a month, with a 10-day delay, S3 said. There have been calls since the GameStop saga to improve transparency around short selling through more frequent reporting.
- partiallypro 2y ago
  The average redditor isn't in an active position to pump and dump, as a single individual.
- lebean 2y ago
  Is that why?! (It's not.)
  - ai_what 2y ago
    Care to explain why not? I can't think of anything he did besides post his position.
    - burnished 2y ago
      He did so while being retail, thats what transforms it from competitive analysis into a crime.
      - realce 2y ago
        I'm a criminal when I tell people about stocks I'm investing in?
        burnished 2y ago
        I think I did the thing where you think the sarcasm will be obvious except it isn't
- cm2187 2y ago
  IANAL but what he is doing is very close to a pump and dump scheme, which is absolutely market manipulation. And as often with market manipulations, there is a thin and blury line between acceptable behaviour and criminal behaviour (for instance front running vs pre-hedging). An investor talking up their book isn't market manipulation, but those tacitly coordinated efforts to buy an illiquid stock to artificially raise the price seem to me fairly squarely on the wrong side of the line. The only problem being the "tacit" aspect of the strategy (kind of like mafia boss "take care of him"). This guy doesn't give a direct instruction, but clearly everyone understands his signal as an instruction.
  - hanniabu 2y ago
    If him just posting an image is a PnD then so is Jim Cramer, motley fool, etc telling people which stocks to buy
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- asynchronous13 2y ago
  It's also worth noting that if you own above a certain percentage of a company's stock, it's legally required to make your trades public. Also interesting -- look at the trade volume during the big moves, like 3-June. There's no way retail investors are causing that much volume, especially when it's during pre-market and post-market trading hours.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  No, because he has an unusually influential position and visibility. The action is evaluated in the context of its consequences.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
StanislavPetrov 2y ago
You're right that there is a non-zero change because of the incredibly corrupt nature of the SEC and the markets. Hedge fund owners and billionaires go on social media, Bloomberg and CNBC hyping their positions all the time, how is this any different? It's different because he isn't part of the club, and worse yet, he is costing members of the club money.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Agreed. We should hold Elon Musk accountable for his misconduct in terms of market manipulation and flagrant SEC violations.
  - JimothyPhtevens 2y ago
    To be honest, he's done worse than Keith Gill, but I consider both to be doing a public disservice. They wouldn't post their positions unless they are legally required to and/or it benefits them. Let's see Keith post his positions before he takes them if he wants to help people.

cwbriscoe 2y ago

For what? Posting his position? If that is the case half of the superstonks subreddit would have to be charged.

richbell 2y ago
> If that is the case half of the superstonks subreddit would have to be charged. You could make a compelling argument that they should be. Superstonks doesn't just post their positions. They, too, try to manipulate the market by hyping up GME. I would highly recommend "This is Financial Advice" by Dan Olson to anyone not already familiar with the community. https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  Superstonks isn’t a parody?
  - therobots927 2y ago
    This is an anon account so I feel safe to admit this. I used to buy into all of that stuff. Basically the (conspiracy) theory is that market makers sold shares in GameStop that didn’t exist. There’s an element of truth to this, at least during 2021 it was confirmed that market makers had collectively sold more call options than they could possibly hedge with shares. But regardless, in order to prove this everyone in superstore started registering their shares with a transfer agent. The number of shares registered was reported by GameStop every quarter. Throughout 2022 I think the number of shares registered linearly before it plateaued at about 25% of the public number of total shares of GameStop. I might be conspiracy oriented but I’m also a believer in science and to me this cast a significant amount of doubt on the theory. Anyways, it’s definitely not a parody and I feel sorry for people who didn’t wake up like I did. I think something like 200,000 people registered their shares, that number also plateaued. I don’t think the GME craze was good for anyone but the company itself and roaring kitty.
    - DANmode 2y ago
      That all shareholders did not register on ComputerShare or whatever is what leads you to no longer buy into...what, precisely?
      - therobots927 2y ago
        The idea that the stock was being sold short with fake shares.
        CrazyStat 2y ago
        Selling call options is not short selling though.
        therobots927 2y ago
        If you’re not hedging by buying enough shares to provide when they exercise it might as well be.
        DANmode 2y ago
        I followed that wrinkle pretty closely. I was surprised to hear how high the number stated was (25%). I do not see the connection between that movement achieving <100%, and there being no fraud committed in claimed assets in the finance world. Especially in that case. And I can’t, frankly, see how you drew that connection either.
        therobots927 2y ago
        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence sure. But it sure ain’t proof of anything either. If you’re going to make an outrageous claim you need to prove it.
        DANmode 2y ago
        There were more shares being claimed than were owned. What more is there to prove? It's not even unusual to do. Explainer: How were more than 100% of GameStop’s shares shorted? NEW YORK, Feb 18 (Reuters) - One area of focus from a U.S. House of Representatives panel on Thursday will likely be on the role short selling played in the GameStop (GME.N), opens new tab market mayhem. Executives from trading platform Robinhood and hedge funds Melvin Capital and Citadel will be grilled following the retail-driven trading frenzy that sparked wild gyrations in GameStop and other heavily shorted stocks. Short selling, details of which are included in the memorandum, opens new tab about the hearing, can be a positive move, as it can be used in hedging positions, more accurately valuing prices of stocks and exposing frauds, like Enron and Theranos. But Vlad Tenev, broker Robinhood's chief executive officer, recently pointed out that some of the stocks involved in the "meme stock" rally were more than 100% shorted, implying that more shares were shorted than were available to trade. "I just think that's pathological," he said on the All-In Podcast, opens new tab late last Friday. "You end up with this situation that could destabilize the financial markets." HOW DOES SHORT SELLING WORK? Advertisement · Scroll to continue Typically, shorting a stock is a bet that the share price is going to fall. Short sellers borrow shares from brokers and then sell them into the market, with the agreement that they will buy the shares back and return them to the lender at an agreed upon time. The shares can come from the brokers' own inventories, or from customers that have allowed the brokers to lend out their shares. When it's time to return the shares, if the stock price has fallen, the short seller can buy the shares back at a lower price than they originally paid for them, locking in a profit. If the price has risen, the short seller must buy back the shares at the higher price, incurring a loss. In the meantime, the short seller pays the lender interest on the value of the stock, giving the lender extra income. IS IT RISKY TO LEND OUT SHARES? Not really. The borrower posts collateral, typically, opens new tab 102% of the prior day's settlement price. The borrower can also request the shares back at any time. Advertisement · Scroll to continue HOW CAN MORE THAN 100% OF A COMPANY'S SHARES BE SHORTED? Once the short seller borrows the shares from the lender and then sells them back into the market, the new owner of the shares is free to lend them out, just as the previous owner did, and have no idea they are on the other side of a short sale. Settlement time is two days after the transaction. In that time, the same shares can be lent out again, and again. This makes it possible, on paper, for more than 100% of the float of a stock to be shorted. According to financial analytics firm S3, GameStop's peak short interest was 141.8% of its float on Jan. 4. S3 argued in a recent research note that the traditional method of calculating the percentage of float is flawed because it uses stale data. U.S. investors are required to mark their shares shorted and regulators report these figures twice a month, with a 10-day delay, S3 said. There have been calls since the GameStop saga to improve transparency around short selling through more frequent reporting.
partiallypro 2y ago
The average redditor isn't in an active position to pump and dump, as a single individual.
lebean 2y ago
Is that why?! (It's not.)
- ai_what 2y ago
  Care to explain why not? I can't think of anything he did besides post his position.
  - burnished 2y ago
    He did so while being retail, thats what transforms it from competitive analysis into a crime.
    - realce 2y ago
      I'm a criminal when I tell people about stocks I'm investing in?
      - burnished 2y ago
        I think I did the thing where you think the sarcasm will be obvious except it isn't
cm2187 2y ago
IANAL but what he is doing is very close to a pump and dump scheme, which is absolutely market manipulation. And as often with market manipulations, there is a thin and blury line between acceptable behaviour and criminal behaviour (for instance front running vs pre-hedging). An investor talking up their book isn't market manipulation, but those tacitly coordinated efforts to buy an illiquid stock to artificially raise the price seem to me fairly squarely on the wrong side of the line. The only problem being the "tacit" aspect of the strategy (kind of like mafia boss "take care of him"). This guy doesn't give a direct instruction, but clearly everyone understands his signal as an instruction.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  If him just posting an image is a PnD then so is Jim Cramer, motley fool, etc telling people which stocks to buy
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
asynchronous13 2y ago
It's also worth noting that if you own above a certain percentage of a company's stock, it's legally required to make your trades public. Also interesting -- look at the trade volume during the big moves, like 3-June. There's no way retail investors are causing that much volume, especially when it's during pre-market and post-market trading hours.
hiddencost 2y ago
No, because he has an unusually influential position and visibility. The action is evaluated in the context of its consequences.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

StanislavPetrov 2y ago

You're right that there is a non-zero change because of the incredibly corrupt nature of the SEC and the markets. Hedge fund owners and billionaires go on social media, Bloomberg and CNBC hyping their positions all the time, how is this any different? It's different because he isn't part of the club, and worse yet, he is costing members of the club money.

hiddencost 2y ago
Agreed. We should hold Elon Musk accountable for his misconduct in terms of market manipulation and flagrant SEC violations.
- JimothyPhtevens 2y ago
  To be honest, he's done worse than Keith Gill, but I consider both to be doing a public disservice. They wouldn't post their positions unless they are legally required to and/or it benefits them. Let's see Keith post his positions before he takes them if he wants to help people.