If they were just blocking margin trading or trades with unlimited risk that would be one thing. But this smacks of either paternalism or trying to manipulate the market. I hope they lose a lot of customers (or product depending on your POV).
It's absolutely paternalism, IMO. I'm less sure whether I think it's a good thing or not (because I think people buying new positions in GME at this point are unlikely to end up happy about that in mid-Feb.)
I'm all for "let 'em play" in general but this is not going to end well for a lot of folks...
People who believe that they can only buy GME via specifically Robinhood, I'm not sure I see them as sophisticated investors or even "understand what they're doing".
I think that people should be able to spend their money however they want. I also don't mind when regulators say "liquor stores are blocked from having one-day specials the day that welfare benefits are paid."
If Robinhood believes that their customers are better served by blocking certain transactions, I trust Robinhood to make that call (and suffer the goodwill or ill-will that results).
Timing. I looked into getting into this game to see if I could make some cash day trading (at the level of one unit of stock -- NOT my life savings).
My investment firm required time to set things up, and it won't be ready in time for this game.
If Robinhood can shut down trades for 24 hours, that's enough to have a huge impact, not just on the market, but on people's individual finances, as they move elsewhere.
Footnote: If I had been successful, I'd be up $200 right now based on the strategy I planned. But I'm not naive enough to think that's anything beyond luck and volatility.
> Why are you so quick to assume that people don’t know what they are doing?
Screenshot lists floating around the internet yesterday pointing out exactly what buttons in your app to hit in order to buy GME options is the first piece of evidence that makes me that thing, perhaps, a large number of people don't know (or understand) what they're actually doing.
OP means even among those who have never invested before, there are a lot of people who want to buy GME to support the cause, not caring if they lose a bit of money in the end.
This hit mainstream this week. There are people out there now buying stock based on a Reddit thread because they think it will get them some quick cash.
I am pretty much in like with the OP in that this is definitely paternalism, and I have no idea if it's good or bad. People were going to get screwed because of this, but I don't think Robinhood or other online trading apps stopped buy's to protect these people.
> Is it so hard to believe that at this point buying GME is more about activism than making profit?
Go read the top comments in the top WSB threads and tell me which it is.
This is all about getting rich quick with a thin veneer of activism slapped on top.
That might not have been the case a few days ago, I don’t know because I only got into the loop yesterday... but if it was 90% activism on Monday... is probably 10% activism today.
I wouldn’t touch that stock using “for real” money with a 50 foot pole.
It’s pretty hypocritical for a casino to say that you are welcome to keep playing our table games and lose your money to us slowly but you aren’t allowed to sit down at that table full of poker sharks because we are worried you’ll lose your shirt.
Casinos LITERALLY do this though, with segregated/exclusive higher stakes games. You only get to play the ultra high stakes poker if you set it up yourself or get invited
No one holding GME is having their holdings seized.
No one holding GME is prevented from selling (by Robinhood; periodic circuit breakers do inject halts for everyone during periods of high volatility/price movement, which are rules set in place before [this] play began)
No one is prevented from opening an account at the many dozen other brokerages who are happy to transact in GME.
Your take is so wrong. There is friction in opening accounts, funding it, etc. If all your investment money is in RH, it takes a week to move money out.
And the simple fact that millions of people on RH are locked out of buying totally fucks the people holding the stock. "You can sell but not buy"?
RH is a business and can make their own decisions. If you are not happy with how they service you as a client, you can take them to court. They do not owe you anything more than what's in the contract you have with them.
What about people that already lost money because of this movement? On the other side, on the sell side there might be lots of people who were holding waiting for a higher price that was driven down by the blocking of new purchases, cratering their gains. Is that right by the rules of the game?
The stockmarkets aspire to be more than a casino and actually a way for people to invest money and productive enterprises to raise it. If you want a casino try crypto.
I ended up buying a couple stocks late in the game, fully expecting to lose the money. First, it's not my retirement or long-term cash, more of a hobby. And that hobby quickly turned into sending a message after watching those rich SOBs literally cry about being hurt by the free market, and then try and end/manipulate it to their advantage.
I have seen a lot of people throw in fractions of a share or less than 10 shares. What you might have observed is the law of large numbers. When you have 4 million people putting in fuckyou money some of them actually have a few hundred thousand to spare and those get voted up.
I keep hearing this argument, but Robinhood's actions will directly cause those people to lose money. By only allowing to sell the stock, most people will hop out or hedge which will tank the price. If they let it play out, then they can blame the market for the outcome.
i wish i could triple up vote this. This morning it seemed to be mostly rising (I saw up to like $470 when I was selling) right until I saw tweets about the blocking of buying and it tanked.
And the same people Robinhood was trying to "save from themselves" weren't able to buy the dips, but the hedge funds could recoup the losses from the shorts in that time frame.
how about for paying gold customers who specifically want to engage int PM/AH trading? i know robinhood isn't a pro level platform but come on, this feels exactly like blatant manipulation.
When Melvin Capital sold a metric ton of naked shorts on GameStop, no one was there to tell them it wouldn't end up well. It was certainly a risk, but not really a bad one going on fundamentals. They just failed to predict the mob mentality of retail investors.
Of course, those retail investors who got in on Thursday, Friday, or Monday; that seemed like a bad purchase. So bad that Melvin double-downed on their naked short position. There's no way the stock could go up. The fundamentals aren't there. But it did. A lot. And those retail investors made a ton of money.
So, we're at today, where you're saying that it would be a bad time to invest because it won't end well. You, and to some degree Robinhood, are making a prediction on the stock market. You may be right; you may be wrong; but you're definitely not certainly right or certainly wrong. You're making the same mistake anyone who tries to pick stocks does; you're just doing it in reverse.
If I were running Robinhood, I'd be inclined to continue to allow trading*, but perhaps with a popup message with language that legal approved to suggest that people should be certain of what they were doing when creating new positions in high-vol securities and would have 100% margin requirements on high-vol securities now. So, I agree with you that I'd, on balance, prefer to see trading open in these names. I think people should do what they want with their money, even if I think it's stupid and likely to end badly.
At the same time, parabolic moves like this have never once in the history of markets been sustained over a long period of time. It's possible that this will be the first one ever, but I am indeed making a prediction that it will not be. You are correct that I might be wrong about that.
* - All this assumes that my clearing firm would continue clearing the orders, which is uncertain at the moment. If my clearing firm won't book the orders, I literally can't do anything except cajol, plead, or sue them.
I'm not sure an app that allows you to put your entire account balance into options trades is engaging in good-faith paternalism by preventing people from buying a particular stock.
I'm pretty happy they are doing it. This is really in the best interest of the average Robinhood user trying to buy GME right now. Maybe they shouldn't completely ban it, but there should be at least very extreme warnings about why its a terrible idea to buy.
Informing your customers is one thing. Blocking them in "their" own interest is a ridiculous overstep. We make platforms and tools to empower users, not to force them down whatever path we deem best for them.
this is stock investing 101. don’t invest what you cannot afford to lose. i find it condescending and insulting that they are claiming to protect the users.
Dude it's my fuckin' money. I don't need or want protection. Maybe I want to buy a couple hundred dollars of meme stonks solely because it's funny. Is that not allowed?
I imagine the paternalism argument would be something like "currently GME is part of a ponzi scheme, and you would be defrauded by making this purchase".
I just wish they'd say that they have a vested interest in the ponzi scheme failing rather than telling me I'm not smart enough to make the decision to throw my money away.
It's probably a liability concern on their part, but they also want people to have money to trade in the future too. If Robinhood users had any chance of actually making a bunch of money on this it would only be in Robhinhoods interest to allow people to continue buying. (if their users have more money in the future they will trade more)
They have blocked 7/10 most mentioned stocks in r/wallstreetbets from being purchased. It isn't just Robinhood, also Revolut and others. Then they launched a short attack, with nobody willing to buy besides themselves, they tanked the stock.
Yep, as of last night RH had also delisted 1/29 options for GME. 2/6 options are still available, which maybe points to RH hoping/thinking this all unwinds in the next few days.
Don't the ToS include a waiver of taking any legal action against RH, class action suits in particular, and a binding arbitration clause in case you really want to make some noise?
IANAL but I believe that some clever lawyers have used this to the advantage of the victims by essentially creating a DOS attack on the company, flooding it with binding arbitration claims.
Well, in this case the ToS will be a contract one needs to "digitally sign" in order to open an RH account. RH would simply claim that its customers didn't have to accept the terms, regardless of how bs those were. I'm not a lawyer, though.
False. There’s no way out of a forced arbitration agreement that bans class actions. The courts always defer to arbitration, even when arbitrability is in question. It’s a ridiculous judicially made trap.
Everyone should utilize this strategy. We’ve been advocating for it for 6 years. AAA keeps upping its fees. Want to attack the system? Attack forced individual arbitration.
I think it will cause them to think twice but the only real way to end it is legislation. The FAA was never intended to apply to consumer disputes or eliminate the ability of people to group together to make a claim. It's all a construct of the courts and corporate-friendly judges and needs adjustment.
According to the Supreme Court, forced arbitration is fine to have in a TOS. The past couple years there's been more awareness of it, it's one of the nastiest sneak moves in history to take people's rights away en masse. You don't find out until you get in a position where you've been harmed and you go to hold them accountable using the legal system: Surprise! You have to settle in this thing where the defendant pays all the participants. Here's your $200 check for your $200,000 claim, see you next time.
Those elites making the rules and the power plays need to remember: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F Kennedy
Elites: better leave some safety valves in the system. People have been getting angry in the last year.
People have been getting angrier since 2008. Lots of those that were young and suffered through are adults now, the ones that were adults are getting older and everyone is still pissed off about what happened.
I definitely feel I'm getting squeezed, even though I've increased my salary quite a lot since 2005, including moving continents to pretty good jobs in Europe. I can feel the squeeze in society, with friends that even in a rich nation with a good salary still don't look very brightly into the future. Climate disasters incoming, also propelled up by the elites (or at least delaying action against, inaction is an attack in this case).
People were tired, now a lot are tired, bored, unemployed and angry.
Citadel is one of the "cheater" funds along with Melvin, Point72 (previously SAC Capital Advisers) and Maplelane (ex-Galleon Group). They all have connections to insider trading of some sort since it was legal to know stuff like earnings beforehand, etc. before reg FD in 2001, and the seeds from that age are still there in these funds. They certainly aren't the type to be below doing something like this.
Citadel could also be absolutely fucking themselves if they end up in discovery over this. It could mean the end of this era of funds. Many would be glad to see them go.
Interactive Brokers now blocking purchase call and put options (even to institutional investors!) on $GME, you can only close a position.
On the other side, Robinhood is asking for account to be funded with cash to execute the calls at expiration, or else they will liquidate your position :|
You’re right. I get the same message for Jan 29’31 300 CALL but do not get the message for the $330 or $500 strike. Looks like its only for ITM strikes.
I don't know IBKR's system, but most OMSs will accept an order unless it's blatantly wrong such as invalid stock. It's the execution engine that really enforce the rules.
Tested IBKR today - I was able to place a simple Limit order for GME stock which was good till close but when I refreshed to view my list of orders it shows as Cancelled.
It's not only about options. You can't buy even 1 stock of GME on non margin account. I don't understand how it has anything to do with IB risk management.
This sort of stuff will put people more and more on edge, there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too, the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
Even more with some irresponsible newspapers blaming the whole thing on GamerGate and Alt-Right, effectively pushing away people that previously could be on their side.
Oh please. Robinhood's business model is not designed for this kind of thing. They are not required to tank their own business to allow malcontents to feel better about themselves.
Thousands of new accounts buying one stock for free (while it's at the top) and then disappearing after it tanks is not going to help them. Is this not obvious?
That shouldn’t change anything if they require the stocks to be purchased with cash and not margin.
Brokerages can, and do all the time, set specific margin requirements for volatile securities. There’s no reason they can’t do that here as well. (unless they literally can’t because their tech stack doesn’t support it which would be pretty funny)
I always thought the app was good - but my view of the role of the broker is to place my trades. If the SEC wants to shut down trading of a security they should do so.
This will be very disruptive to Robinhood. I think today they made a poor business decision that will affect their valuation and potentially the company itself.
I don't do much trading on Robinhood, mostly for learning or experimenting with small amounts of money but this move has left a sour taste. I'll be closing my account, while recognizing that other brokerages are doing the same (though not all).
edit
Retail investors are locked out, $GME is still going up. What's the fucking excuse now?
> Oh please. Robinhood's business model is not designed for this kind of thing. They are not required to tank their own business to allow malcontents to feel better about themselves.
Well, they're gonna lose millions of customers over this I predict. How is that not killing their business?
It’s a pretty classic tactic in the history of conflict. By pushing your opponent into a tight position, you force him to strike first, thus giving you complete justification in your disproportionate response.
Luddites is also a good example. Oh, you are poor and starving and protesting on the streets? They start destroying machines? Time to arrest everyone, even those who did nothing.
Give the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan a listen. The French revolution was not what it seems... it was elites vs. elites, not peasants vs. monarchy.
Yeah, what a weird take. As if La Bastille was attacked by French aristocracy. This argument only holds if you hold 2 very loose claims. 1) To confuse the leaders with the whole movement. 2) To compare the rag-tag group of young lawyers, acerbic journalists, disgruntled politicians with the whole ancien regime.
Mike Duncan is an entertainer, not a professional historian.
It seems preprogrammed in the brain. I can witness that in people that will gradually boil you until you snap and then benefit from the chaos as revenge almost sub-conscientiously
I’m kind of embarrassed to say it never occurred to me that the goal of kettling was to encourage a non-violent protest to violence. Thinking on it, it makes a sort of sick sense. If the people are actually violent the rules go out the window and you can use whatever force you deem necessary. And the police always consider themselves the superior group.
The link to the Wikipedia article explicitly mentions that is was originally designed to just coop up a crowd for several hours so that they get bored and the situation de-escalates. This was seen as a more effective and humane tactic than dispersing rioting crowds using fear by doing police charges. That said, 1990s era European protests (when the theory behind kettling was developed) were rather less violent than current day American protests, helped in no small part of course by the relative prevalence of firearms in American society and their higher distrust of police forces (again, compared to Europeans. Atm distrust between police and protesters in the USA seems to be in a vicious downward spiral where the actions of both group confirm the prejudices of the other group)
Kettling is one of the less provocative tactics, but it's intended as a collective punishment of the kettled: extra-legal detention for a period of hours with no food, water or toilet facilities.
Police can and will provoke non-violent protests to violence. In a few cases (see the UK's "spycops" scandal) police infiltrators will organise protests so they can arrest dissidents.
> It’s a pretty classic tactic in the history of conflict
Yes when executed by a single coherent entity.
This is not it, unless you believe there is a powerful cabal controlling twitter, facebook, robinhood, discord etc.
They are all doing it independtly to limit the legal and/or financial risks for themselves. Getting people to "strike first" is not the intent, saving $ is the intent here.
You are talking about result, I am talking about intent.
Yes the result might be the same, but there is no intent to "force him to strike first, thus giving you complete justification in your disproportionate response".
No it's not, the moment Parler became a liability to them they dumped it. It for some reason it was to become good business again tomorrow, they would jump to host it again.
There is no intent on the part of the GAFAs to force the lower class into a revolution to get a pretext to squash them or any bigger "art of the war" plan behind those decisions than money.
Except it isn't a pump and dump. It is a short squeeze. Hedge fund managers are betting more stocks than the company issued and people are taking advantage of that opportunity.
The closest thing to criminal activity we see here is people betting more than a company's stock. When hedge fund managers see this and buy all the stock to squeeze the shorters it's normal. When it's people like you and me they say it is illegal.
It is a pump in the sense that none of the fundamentals of the company have changed between December and now, the main event has been people buying stock with the express purpose of enabling a short squeeze. Legally, there could be an argument for it being market manipulation.
Exactly. CNBC is the biggest market manipulator with a huge mouthpiece. Anytime Cramer mentions a stock in favorable terms it goes up, at least short term. Meanwhile we know that he is friends with hedge funds and at least part of time is probably taking positions before going on TV.
We give that a free pass but suddenly a loosely-organized internet forum is a problem.
1. If Cramer said "Hey, let's all buy this stock because there is a potential short squeeze.", then that would be illegal because it's attempting to create an artificial market pump through short squeezing.
2. Cramer is LICENSED to give investment advice. A licensed doctor can go on TV and make medical recommendations. Reddit specifically bans subs that try to do that.
You’re getting that from news stories and people aren’t buying it. I just looked at TD Ameritrade and it was at 121% of float. Are there newer numbers?
Again, it's a "Rules for thee but not for me" situation.
And as it turns out, people are very angry about that. And since violence gets you thrown in jail, the next is financial violence in bankrupting these country-destroying fintech scabs.
And look who comes to their rescue, but not for the masses.
As it was said in previous days: they (the originators of the squeeze) can remain irrational longer, than the other side (hedge fund managers) can remain solvent.
True, but if they sell a massive position and the stock tanks, and a bunch of little guys are left to hold the bag, I could see the SEC definitely investigating it as a pump and dump.
If the bunch of the little guys invested each just few hundred, it is not that a big loss. So if they end up holding the bag, it will be distributed among big crowd, where each member would be missing just a little.
Of course, if someone went above that and invested an amount, where losing it would hurt, that's different.
I've heard the talk that Robinhood website is an op by a financial fund called Citadel LLC. It may be considered market manipulation on their side well more solidly than some speculation on the internet, not to say a breach of brokerage contractual obligations.
Not quite. Citadel is a very well known quant hedge fund. The main way Robinhood makes money (and can let people trade without commission) is by selling their customers order flow (legally) to Citadel. Citadel (legally) uses this customer information to, in the milliseconds before the customer, front-run the trade, buy the shares and sell them to the Robinhood users at a marginal profit.
This is missing the context that Robinhood is required to seek the "best" execution of trades [1]. So Citadel is making a profit yes, but the customer is not necessarily harmed in that profit as Citadel may still be delivering a better execution than other market makers or the actual exchange itself.
Robinhood publishes their execution numbers (as required by the SEC), along with other brokers. At a quick glance, there is nothing out of the ordinary. It's also worth noting that you cannot directly compare numbers as different platforms have different trading behavior.
(In 2018, and the actual charges they settled were not that they weren't seeking best execution. The charges that landed were that they falsely advertised that their execution matched or beat other brokers.
In fact, they were still seeking "best" execution; they just didn't beat other brokerages because of high payments for order flow and misled customers about that.)
Can Citadel exercise any sort of discretion on what order-flow they'll fill? Can they legally tell Robinhood that they will no longer fill orders for GME?
> Can Citadel exercise any sort of discretion on what order-flow they'll fill? Can they legally tell Robinhood that they will no longer fill orders for GME?
Legally not, illegally... yes, and try to prove that.
There's Citadel Asset Management, the quant hedge fund (which is probably the one that lent money to Melvin, though I'm not sure about that), and Citadel Securities the HFT / market-making show (they have the same owner).
HFT market-making using retail order flow isn't front-running - the price the customers get is the same regardless ("Best Bid Offer" as brokers are legally required to provide in the US). The difference is, once that the HFT market maker holds the stock, they can get rid of it more easily (i.e. they can close the trade) because (the assumption is that) the retail flow is "noise" (uncorrelated with future price movements) as opposed to professional/institutional traders (e.g. other hedge funds executing their strategies), where a big problem is negative selection (i.e. you're more likely to execute a trade with someone that has better information than you).
This is incorrect. To understand the business model you first have to understand the order book and how trades normally work. The order book consists of two sides. The bids (people who want to buy, how much and at what price), and the asks(people who want to sell, how much and at what price).
For instance the bid side may say
Alice wants to buy 50 shares at $20 (order added at 10:37)
Bob wants to buy 30 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:18)
Citadel wants to buy 35 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:17)
David buy 10 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:01)
The bids are ordered by price, and ties are broken by who placed the order first.
If Evelyn (Robinhood customer) shows up and wants to sell 5 shares at $20, then the exchange will say, oh nice 20 is less than $20.1, lets get some trades going! $20.1 is the highest prices, and of those orders David's were entered first. So Evelyn's sell order is matched with Davids buy order. The price is determined by the order which was in the book. So Evelyn will get a better price than she hoped for!
If Evelyn had requested to sell 100 shares, then she will first sell to David for $20.1, then Citadel's for $20.1, then Bob's for $20.1 and finally some of Alice's shares for $20.
Ok but what happens if Citadel is paying for order flow?? Now the order book (from Evelyn's perspective) looks like
Alice wants to buy 50 shares at $20 (order added at 10:37)
Bob wants to buy 30 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:18)
David buy 10 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:01)
Citadel wants to buy 35 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:17)
So if Evelyn (Robinhood customer) shows up, and again wants to sell 5 shares at $20, then she will sell to Citadel, even though their order is later than David's.
Citadel securities is the market maker that pays for order flow, Citadel is the hedge fund that lent 2 billion to melvin capital. Definitely smells like some backroom don't bite the hand that feeds you.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
What's even more concerning to me is that, to platforms looking for an excuse, your comment could be painted as trying to "incite" violence, and used as a justification to ban you.
How do we know what 'the public' is cheering? Has there been any reputable sources of this?
On one hand, the rise of meme stocks is shining light that one of the central conceits of capitalism is wrong (i.e. that the stock market isn't a good arbiter of the value of companies).
But as a member of the public, I'm concerned about what happens when the meme stocks come crashing back to earth. When that happens institutional investors will overreact, doom and gloom will reign, and CEOs of public companies will use that to lay off people and cut worker benefits.
The common person always loses when bubbles burst.
If there was no meme-stockery happening, Gamestop would have gone bust and everyone that works there would have been laid off. That's what the whole short strategy was intended to do, bleed them dry just like Toys R Us.
In a crazy way this is probably saving a lot more jobs than it's jeopardizing.
Why would GameStop have gone bust? Even if GameStop stock would trade at zero, the company still exists until it runs out of money and declares bankruptcy, which is independent of its stock price.
In this case, it's not really saving any jobs, since GameStop employees (excluding higher ranked employees) probably don't have any part of their compensation that's stock based.
Toys R Us was a leveraged buyout, which is definitely a much more ethically dubious strategy, and that can cause jobs to be lost. This won't cause any jobs at GameStop to be lost, although there probably will be some unhappy traders and people left holding bags of GameStop stock.
You're right, what I meant is that the share price doesn't affect the finances of the company (eg. a company that sells widgets makes the same amount of money whether their stock is worth $1 or $100000). As you point out, the share price should in theory reflect the value of the company (bankrupt company -> share price of $0), but a fluctuating stock price doesn't really change the value of the company itself (excluding shares that it owns, obviously).
Out of curiosity, has that actually happened to a public stock? I'd assume the minority shareholders would have standing for a lawsuit if someone were to do a hostile takeover of a stock and liquidate the assets of the company.
Afaik it used to be popular in the 70s and 80s. It’s sometimes called “Corporate Raid” [0]. In the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gecko wants to buy the airline to sell it for parts.
"The common person always loses when bubbles burst."
That is a tautology, because you define the "common person" as the person who loses.
I'm sure there were people who made good money in the 2008 housing bubble. Didn't they all live like kings for a while, because they could borrow arbitrary sums against their houses?
Similarly, some people may make good money on that GameStop thing now.
The "common people" who didn't participate in this will probably never even notice. At most they'll notice that their favorite shopping mall is closing, but that is part of a larger trend. And they can now shop on Amazon instead, so their quality of life probably remains the same or gets improved.
Actually, I never defined the common person. Because I felt it's pretty obvious.
The common person is the majority of Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't invest in the market.
Those who don't participate will be negatively impacted if this causes another recession, which is likely as investors get spooked by another bubble burst. Which means standard of living, job benefits, and salaries will continue to stagnate.
This also ignores the fact that we've moved from guaranteed pensions to 401ks, which are heavily dependent on hedge funds. If hedge funds lose their shirts, they'll get a bailout from the government because we didn't learn our lesson about too big to fail last time. Which will mean government austerity in other areas, typically starting in social welfare programs.
> one of the central conceits of capitalism is wrong (i.e. that the stock market isn't a good arbiter of the value of companies)
The "central conceit" is not that the market is a "good arbiter" of the value of a company. Just that it's the least bad one.
The central conceit of every alternative to capitalism is that there's such a thing as a singular, coherent definition of "the value of a company" and that it's consistently, accurately measurable by some central authority.
Dogecoin subreddit may get banned too. Saw elsewhere that they're trying to push it to $1 (it's at $0.01 and the push has raised it 72%). Half tempted to drop $1k in it, in a Just-In-Case thing. Supposedly the total volume of Dogecoin is only 128k coins, though that sounds low. If it is that low it explains why the coin is so volatile. My main cryptocurrency positions are Bitcoin and Cardano.
Too many whales in dogecoin that want to keep a lid on it. It's meant to be used for charity and community building. Sometimes you can play the run and use derivatives to short it on the way down. Easier plays than this though.
It's definitely not 128k coins. When it was first created it was notable for having such a huge supply of coins that people could have silly fun with it and not care about the 'value' of it. That hasn't remained true, but it was the initial idea behind it, a joke coin people could give tons of coins to other people to for pennies.
It would be interesting to know what the difference is between CNBC talking heads VS a community of "traders"?
Jimmy Cramer pumping stocks every evening to his boomer audience which ultimately has some effects (not sure how much though) on stock prices seems fine but a group of people discussing stocks seems like a threat...
Exactly, this is the point that I am trying to figure out. Moderators control the conversation and that's it. So what is the difference between CNBC talking heads pumping up a stock VS subredditors who are, as you might imagine, everyday people just having some financial fun and sharing ideas. One can get paid off whilst the other cannot I imagine is the difference.
Just looking at this from a technical perspective, it'll be pretty exciting if all this ends up leading to an explosion in the take up of self-hosted social media platforms.
The question is, will the creators of these communities trust cloud providers where the platforms are hosted to not de-platform them, or will we end up with P2P, distributed networks instead?
Until China, Japan and Russia unite to provide disenfranchised Americans with a free internet that is off-limits from the grabbing hands of the US elites.
And it will thrive and will be a better place to make more money that SV for 5-10 years, until it gets censored like any public space.
Would be interesting if WSB was allowed to invest in private startups as easily as they can invest in meme stocks.
Robinhood doesn't like us? We'll start out own.
Reddit doesn't like us? Let's just kickstart and crowd-source another.
This idea that the common man needs to be protected from himself is paternalistic and condescending. Private equity is the means of collective action and the rich people don't want us to organize without their blessings.
Which is more or less how most big investment (hedge) and prop trading firms use it anyway. The key difference here as the same is it always is: which group has the ear of those with power.
> This idea that the common man needs to be protected from himself is paternalistic
Interesting word choice. Conservative wording of "common man", but liberal wording of "paternalistic". I don't mind the former but I do wonder how a father would be more inclined to protect a child from itself than a mother; if anything, I would find maternalistic a more fitting descriptor.
> Reddit doesn't like us? Let's just kickstart and crowd-source another.
There's Ruqqus which is already a working alternative to reddit. However, what I found going there is that there are a lot of anti-left memes being shared. Some amount of toxicity. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I wish the platform was a bit less political, a more neutral alternative to reddit... but hey, if enough people leave reddit, maybe it will become just that.
> what I found going there is that there are a lot of anti-left memes being shared
This is probably because reddit is quite clearly a left-leaning platform. Due to the lack of healthy balance, the refugees from reddit are mostly people who feel their views and voices are being silenced by aggressive moderation.
In my opinion this state of affairs is only reddit's fault.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the members of WSB from pooling their money to start an angel fund, VC fund, or any other form of private equity. You don’t need special Wall Street credentials to do that, just some money and a lawyer.
That’s a pretty long-term bet, though, and I don’t think WSB is usually into those.
Then payment processors ban you. Then you start your own visa. Let's start our own visa. Banks ban you. Let's start our own bank. Your hosting service bans you. Host your own. Your ISP bans you. Start your own ISP. Other ISPs don't peer with you. Start your own internet. Then the feds shut down your bank.
There are other ways of applying pressure. AWS hosting Wikileaks was not illegal but they were still pressured to stop hosting if they wanted lucrative hosting contracts with the federal government.
Now I doubt Reddit has huge contracts with the government, but I’m sure the government could find something to harass them with if it wanted to. Drive long enough and a cop will eventually find a reason to pull you over.
Definitely. It wouldn’t at all surprise me to find out reddit was being pressured in some way but I think that pressure is far more likely to come from investment folks than regulators. And I think elite investor class pressure would be far more threatening & potentially costly to reddit than anything the SEC might be able to dig up.
I'm not so sure. This subreddit is immensely popular right now, when they get banned the receiving backslash might be Reddits Digg-moment. And they are probably aware of this.
With 175MM+ pageviews yesterday alone, I'm sure they're ecstatic about WSB's growth.
This chapter in WSB has brought forth substantially better communication with the admins than we'd ever had in the past, including a direct line to Alexis.
Edit:
Thank you all for the outpour of support!
Our main challenges thus far have been technical (hitting API limits, automoderator backlog, etc.) however, those issues have now been resolved and our bots are running better than ever before.
We largely owe our success in handling this to the Reddit engineering team who has routinely stepped up and fixed things. As chaotic as the scene has been for us moderators, I'm sure they have been under much more pressure. If you know a reddit engineer, please give them your thanks as they have done a phenomenal job.
For those curious, the surge in activity broke a number of things. Here are just a few:
> modmail surpassing 80,000+ messages resulting in modmail going down
What SEC rule is WSB violating? I've seen no evidence yet that there is any sort of pump and dump collusion, the speculative bubble / stick-it-to-the-market-manipulators deal on WallStreetBets seems to be fairly organically driven as many memes are. There's no rules that I can think of against "tulip mania" type speculative bubbles. If there were, a huge amount of people would have been in serious trouble for the 2008 real estate bubble / crash.
To be honest, I think the recent restrictions on trading specific stocks (on Robinhood etc.) is absolutely dumb. Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders. But an amateur mob performing the short squeeze must be stopped at all cost? What bullshit. Either the "casino" should be open to all, or rules that apply to the "amateur mob" should apply to the HFT and derivatives market as well.
Market manipulation. Loosely, market manipulation happens when you artificially influence the price of a stock, resulting in a personal gain. Buying stock with the intention of causing a short squeeze can be interpreted to fit that definition. I believe that WSB is creating artificial demand to try to "screw over" certain institutional investors. I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal interpretation.
> Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders.
How were they "absolutely fine?" You do know that regulators attempted to prosecute the traders/executives responsible for the 2008 VW short squeeze [1], and successfully prosecuted a trader for the 2010 flash crash [2]? For the VW short squeeze, regulators were not able to find evidence that the traders involved intended to cause a short squeeze or engaged in any artificial demand; they actually demanded the stock because they sought to take over VW. This is also evidenced by the fact the Porsche sold stock on the open market once they released that a squeeze was happening [3].
> Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition.
Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction in the past between "real demand" (i.e. demand motivated because you think the stock is undervalued) and "artificial demand" (i.e. demand that is not based on any underlying analysis, but instead motivated because you intend to trigger other market mechanisms, including coverings of short positions). Like most legal definitions, the actual definition is hazy, and courts may have established legal tests. Read Matt Levine for a nuanced analysis [1].
And every time, an effort to judge whose demand is more real that other ends up with absurd, scandalous legal rulings.
They should not be.
These guys have full understanding how laughable it the attempt to judge somebody by pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind, and yet they do it.
> pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind
But historical cases don't peer into people's minds. They look at evidence, such as texts in chat rooms that show clear intent to manipulate. See the Libor scandal chats [1], where one trader wrote "its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money" and "its a cartel now in london."
I think it's unlikely that the SEC will be able to successfully prosecute WSB traders, though, due to lack of evidence. It's also probably not even worth their time.
> Market manipulation. Loosely, market manipulation happens when you artificially influence the price of a stock, resulting in a personal gain. Buying stock with the intention of causing a short squeeze can be interpreted to fit that definition. I believe that WSB is creating artificial demand to try to "screw over" certain institutional investors. I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal interpretation.
Bill Ackman went on CNBC last year in near tears saying the end was coming, helping stocks continue their nose dive...all the while he was buying tons and tons of stocks which he turned into billions. How is that allowed but people on a message board sharing positions and high number of short floats isn't? There is literally, and has been for a long time, a website that tells you the short interest in a stock. It's sole purpose is to help people find short squeezes. That's why you have stats like "days to cover."
> Bill Ackman went on CNBC last year in near tears saying the end was coming, helping stocks continue their nose dive.... How is that allowed?
It shouldn't be allowed without proper disclosure on their actual positions. The SEC has prosecuted people in the past for making public statements while taking the other direction without proper disclosure.
I believe that this should be investigated by the SEC, but it likely may not since, at the direction of the Trump administration, the SEC has instead focused their efforts on other financial crimes.
I personally believed that stocks would continue at depressed valuations for the duration of the pandemic, yet bought during the crash because I knew there would be a recovery. I don’t think those actions are contradictory. (And of course I wound up being surprised how quickly prices recovered.)
You weren't a huge fund manager on TV talking down the market in real time while having your firm buy. A lot of people vested around last March, that's completely different than trying to scare people out of positions on national TV so that you can get into the position at a lower price.
> The SEC has prosecuted people in the past for making public statements while taking the other direction without proper disclosure.
There a difference between "This stock is going down. (I buy long because I know something I'm not saying)" and "This stock is going down. (I buy short because I believe what I say)"
This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
If the SEC doesn't like this, they should fix the underlying market structure that makes this action possible. Effectively: what allows the traders to create leverage by abusing / forcing brokers to take specific actions.
Or just give up and accept that by digitizing markets we're past the rubicon to smart trading and predatory pack algorithms being successful.
First, I am not arguing that WSB is engaging in fraud or misrepresentation, as is alleged with Ackman. That is entirely different from the activity I am alleging is being done on WSB (by a subset of posters).
> This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
I see threads where WSB is saying "This stock is going up, and if we make it go up more, hedge funds & market makers will have to buy more stock to cover their short positions, and therefore it will go up even further [and we will make more money]." That's the manipulative part — creating artificial prices to induce even more demand.
I think it's the "manipulative" that's debatable here, because the manipulation is effectively being done by a second party.
Is it manipulation if you're so predictable that an action by me causes you to always act a certain way? And I profit when you take that action?
If hedge funds refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no? Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
The rationale is that markets are better for participants when their prices are accurate and reflect true supply and demand. Price manipulation subverts that, so the SEC disallows it (except in some cases where manipulation is explicitly allowed for historical reasons).
> refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no?
This is imprecise; hedge funds might cover short positions to hedge further losses, or because their prime broker might require them to maintain a certain margin (to reduce counterparty risk). I have no experience in institutional investing, so that's a guess.
> Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
Market makers will increase a premium for options on "overly volatile stocks." If the risk is too high, then they may stop selling the options altogether. But the problem is — it's difficult to predict which next stock WSB might start manipulating. That's another issue. If regulatory agencies don't step in and prevent this type of manipulation, the premiums on all retail-adjacent options will be higher because of the increased risk and fear that a capricious WSB crowd might turn on a MM. That's bad for people who use options "correctly" — not for gambling, but as a way to hedge and reduce risk.
> ...all the while he was buying tons and tons of stocks which he turned into billions
It's called activist investing. His fund did not buy stocks, but bought Credit Default Swaps to the tune of $27 million USD. In the event that the markets dropped, they were awarded massive gains if they exit position. They gained $1.3 billion.
Prior to exiting the position which was publicly released, he went on media outlets and promoted the idea of shutting down the economy. This is what activist investors do. They actively spread rumors that will help their positions.
I'd be really interested in learning more about the Olympic level mental gymnastics one has to go through to write this off as O.K. but then turn around and say that a bunch of random people on an open public forum saying to buy an over-shorted stock is market manipulation. They don't even have the purchasing power to make a difference here.
I remember, a few years back, that Musk made news because he shut down someone asking questions in a public earnings report. The press was giving him a lot of flack about it. Then I kept reading, and found out the person who was trying to ask those questions represented a firm(s) that had large short positions on the stock, and was trying to cause the stock to dip. Musk knew what was going on, and headed it off. Seemed like he made a good call, but then the press made THAT the story instead.
That is -not- what an activist investor is. An activist investor is someone that buys a large enough portion of a company in order to have a say in board operations, etc (even liquidation.) You can go on air and talk up your company, ever CEO, etc does that. That is expected. What he did was talk down positions he was going into. That is not activism.
> There is literally, and has been for a long time, a website that tells you the short interest in a stock. It's sole purpose is to help people find short squeezes. That's why you have stats like "days to cover."
Again, I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not a legal interpretation or legal advice; just my personal opinion.
Motivation and intent are the main factors in determining manipulation. So there are two cases:
1. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they believe that a short squeeze may be incoming soon.
2. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they intend to drive the stock price up, thereby causing a short squeeze.
(1) is legal (in my understanding; see the disclaimers above). (2) is not. They differ in their intents. The first one is "legitimate" demand, the second is "artificial."
Now, it's difficult to prove intent in court. And clearly, many people in WSB legitimately are buying the stock because of (1). But there are some who are doing (2). They have plausible deniability, though, and that's why it's unlikely that anyone in WSB will be successfully prosecuted without more concrete evidence.
This is not artificially influencing the stock price. Buying a stock believing it will increase in value is basically the point of the stock market. Believing it will increase in value because it's been over-shorted is a legitimate reason to ascribe value to it.
> The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security".
It is my opinion that this demand is not artificial, it is genuine, although caused by factors other than the inherent value of the stock itself.
If this is considered to be 'creating an artificial price', I don't see how a position where 140% of the shares of a company are shorted could not be, meaning significantly wider implications than just a single subreddit.
Since I am not a lawyer and therefore unfamiliar with the potential liabilities I might incur by not including that disclaimer, I would rather cover my ass.
There are no repurcussions for not having that antiquated disclaimer. Which wouldn't hold up even if there was some magic that allowed a case to be brought
IMO the same is true with mask mandates. Businesses probably fear lawsuits from employees and customers who might get sick, and blame them for not doing enough. Sometimes a business does something that it claims is in the public interest but in reality is to protect them; i.e. Green Washing.
Yep. In Virginia a church sued and forced the mandate to put the misdemeanor on the individual rather than the church. I wish they would do this for businesses as well.
Wall Street asked for exactly these sorts of deregulations. It's absolutely hypocritical for them to ask for exceptions to be made now and those half-assed versions of older regulations brought back but for only some traders.
The hedge funds went to CNBC and told them they settled their short positions at $90. This news rippled through the entire trading community, exactly the same as WSB information ripples through the entire trading community. There is zero difference.
Most likely this will be like accessibility to poker online and in casinos which don't profit off the game directly interestingly in the 2000s. A lot of people got involved. A few made a lot of money and the rest went to do other things after a while.
I think its fine that the SEC attempts to clean up stock manipulation schemes. The reason anyone cares is that you can lose all your money playing around in the market, and the SEC is responsible for trying to keep people from being taken advantage of, and in cases like this swept up in manias.
You can lose all your money in the market playing around in the market. If I could sign some sort of statement saying I know what I'm doing, I won't invest more than I'm willing to lose, and while I may make extremely risky bets, I'm willing to forego your "protection" in favor of being able to lose all of my money, I would.
And I did, because I'm a registered investor. But this isn't available to most people, only the top 10%.
I agree with your skepticism of registered investor requirements, but that's not really a related issue. Regulators and platforms intervene in this way against even the most sophisticated investors; the possibility of a trading freeze when the market exhibits crazy volatility is well-known.
I can buy GameStop. My friend can't. Trading freeze for everyone, sure. Trading freeze for some people, but not for other people? That's fucking bullshit.
There's not any real reason to be concerned about this. Not yet, at least.
Furthermore, this comment is offensive. Let's please not pretend that Facebook and Twitter were "looking for an excuse" before deplatforming Trump. They were entirely justified and would have been justified in doing so many years before they eventually did so.
Let's also not put the word "incite" in dick quotes barely three weeks after an insurrection and attempted coup. There was actual incitement of violence in that case.
I think there's plenty of reason to be concerned, but certainly not enough to be terrified or overreact with comments like "this comment is offensive".
I don't think that expressing my opinion is an overreaction. It's offensive to minimize what happened on January 6th. That's what you do when you mock the notion that the president incited violence.
And I am offended when a few loud voices maximize it. It is called making a mountain out of a mole hill and the media did well here to convince so many to not give too much thought about giving up their rights again.
Very similar to 9/11 except less casualties thankfully. Just an interesting observation of how much control screens can exert then vs now. More are connected with constant access. We need better screen diets.
"It's offensive" is not actually an argument. There never was a societal consensus that nobody should be allowed to say things that somebody could consider offensive. That's just what some people want, as a means to control other people.
I'm curious why people are so tender to the capital riots and not to the Chaz "autonomous zone" and the riots, continued even to this day, by BLM and Antifa. Is there a distinction I'm not getting here?
There are quite a few distinctions that should be obvious, yes, but let's stick to the most obvious one: BLM hasn't attempted to overturn a US election or overthrow the government.
Or this one: BLM hasn't caused any deaths, to date; the Capitol (capitalized, btw, and with an "o") insurrection caused 5 and could easily have resulted in the assassination of various senior government officials.
Or this one: BLM protests involved tens of millions of citizens across all walks of life and were prompted by very real social problems with police murdering black people; the Capitol riot was prompted by fascism and white supremacy.
Not really lol, that’s more like trying to seceded or fight for independence while the capital insurrection attempted to kidnap and kill actual leaders of America.
I appreciate the feedback. Could you tell me exactly which comments you found to be alienating? Perhaps that would help me refine arguments in the future. Thanks.
> the Capitol riot was prompted by fascism and white supremacy.
If you're proud to be a fascist and white supremacist then this doesn't make someone not want to be one. If you're not then you'd be offended by that accusation that you are one. It's a polarising statement that target's an individual's identity, not their actions. It was an ad hominem attack.
Had you made reference to the disinformation campaign surrounding the election results or the President's remarks that actively fanned the flames of their outrage (outrage that they certainly perceived as legitimate but the rest of us know was misguided) then that would be a very different argument. It would be one that forgave regular people for being people and targeted those truly responsible. It's an argument that invites people to agree with you rather than making them the enemy.
Are you serious? BLM murdered an 8 year old black girl in atlanta and terrorized people by taking over seattle, and restaurants. They most definitely tried to use political attacks as leverage. The capital riots were patriots who have been upset that the corrupt courts refused to allow anybody to present evidence of fraud when there is more than enough out there to show
As someone who considered himself to be on the right until relatively recently, I'm pretty disturbed by how it seems to have rejected reason in favor of sloppy free association.
> The capital riots were patriots who have been upset that the corrupt courts refused to allow anybody to present evidence of fraud when there is more than enough out there to show
The allegations of fraud were laughed out of court, even by Republican judges, because they had no merit whatsoever. They were little more than expressions of an incompetent demagogue's psychological insecurity.
3. The capitol rioters deliberately struck at the democratic process itself (e.g. process of conducting a fair election) because they rejected the results of that process, which is a far more serious thing than any traditional protest, no matter how violent.
1) Because there was just a single "capitol incident", and several BLM riots.
2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
> 1) Because there was just a single "capitol incident", and several BLM riots.
No, there wasn't just a single incident. Just to give some examples off the top of my head: large groups of III%ers participated in both the Capitol Attack and Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the BLM counter-protests were arguably part of the same phenomenon (and one of them shot three people in Kenosha).
> 2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
That's a sloppy reading of what I said. I merely pointed out a fact that makes attribution of violence that occurred at the protests difficult.
> 3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
It's pretty obvious that it wasn't an "attack on democracy" because they made reform demands to elected officials and were cooperating with the government:
> The protest zone has increasingly functioned with the tacit blessing of the city. Harold Scoggins, the fire chief, was there on Wednesday, chatting with protesters, helping set up a call with the Police Department and making sure the area had portable toilets and sanitation services....
> The demonstrators have also been trying to figure it out, with various factions voicing different priorities. A list of three demands was posted prominently on a wall: one, defund the Police Department; two, fund community health; and three, drop all criminal charges against protesters.
1) The Kenosha shooting was self defense. And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims. BLM is connected to socialism, so I guess you could count the 100 million dead in the Chinese Culture revolution and so on.
2) In the same vein, there seems to be only one actual victim of protester violence at the capitol, and that one also looks more like an accident (got hit in the head with a thrown item, which is of course a stupidly dangerous attack, but also common at BLM riots)
3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
Also, there are videos from the capitol of security staff chatting with the protesters. So I guess they were also cooperating, and hence, by your logic, democratic.
Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
> And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims.
Which is what you're doing. Why arbitrarily lump together BLM and looters, when it could make more sense to consider them different groups that happen to be in the same area reacting in their own ways to the same circumstances?
> 3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
The point is it's not a succession if you continue to recognize the government by calling on it to reform.
> Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
Lee Keltner - Killed in Denver by the hired security guard for a journalist.
Aaron Danielson - Killed at dueling protests by self identifying anti-facist (antifa)
Garret Foster - He was a BLM protestor killed by an active Army sergeant.
Tyler Gerth- he was a protest photographer killed by a guy with a grudge over an argument.
David Dorn - Not killed by BLM
The protests were several miles away and had disbanded a few hours earlier near the Metropolitan Police Headquarters downtown after clashes between police and a few remaining agitators turned violent
Do I really have to go on?
You make it sound like those on your list were killed BLM mobs and a modicum of investigation makes it obvious you lack perspective. Those that marched on the Capitol were indeed a mob.
>Or this one: BLM hasn't caused any deaths, to date; the Capitol (capitalized, btw, and with an "o") insurrection caused 5 and could easily have resulted in the assassination of various senior government officials
In Atlanta BLM protestors set up an armed road block. Several people were shot there culminating in the shooting death of a 9 year old girl.
The Capitol "riot" involved people with known plots to capture and kill lawmakers, and occurred while Congress was in session doing one of the most important (if intended to be mundane) tasks it does every four years.
Yes, the anarchist are not trying to dictate to the rest of the country how to be ruled. This is major difference and though I'm not an anarchist, I can make a difference.
Honestly as a non-American I look on at comments like this with amusement.
If you believe the global antifa is an armed wing of the democrats then your an absolute tool.
No one said or implied you were American. In fact, the comment that 'SV trends left' kind of belies that fact. The power brokers and people in actual control of SV are libertarian, not left.
And antifa is an idea, not a singular, cohesive group. So if you weren't talking about antifa as an idea (which isn't uniquely American), what are you talking about? The made-up-by-right-wing-news organized leftist group that doesn't exist?
Further, if you were an informed American, I'd hope that you would understand that those who tend to identify with antifa weren't (and by and large aren't) happy with the selection of Biden and Harris. Both are seen as defenders of the prison industrial complex.
>> The power brokers and people in actual control of SV are libertarian, not left.
Name one that is politically active, other than Peter Thiel.
>> And antifa is an idea, not a singular, cohesive group.
Citation needed.
>>The made-up-by-right-wing-news organized leftist group that..
..rioted non-stop for about nine months all across America and killed 25 people.
Fixed it for you.
>> Further, if you were an informed American, I'd hope that you would understand that those who tend to identify with antifa weren't (and by and large aren't) happy with the selection of Biden and Harris. Both are seen as defenders of the prison industrial complex.
Well, they might not like them too much, but Biden is an empty suit and there is always the prospect of The Squad getting more power in the DNC. And they absolutely hated Trump.
You're asking for citations for the non-existence of a secret group that you claim, with no evidence, is "the armed wing of the Democrat party". You have the burden of proof here, and you cannot be taken seriously until you've met that.
European antifa != American antifa. Learned this when I went to Germany and people were just walking around in Antifa shirts. I told them Antifa is basically a terrorist group in America and they thought this was super weird, because over there it is more of a legitimate political movement.
You're misinterpreting my comment. There is no 'American Antifa (TM)', it is many smaller groups. That just supports what I wrote. I wasn't about to write "some movement in Germany != many smaller groups in the US, some of which are violent and destructive, and have varying levels of attachment to the same ideology." Although, considering the reading comprehension of some people on this site, being more explicit might have helped.
Edit: just gathered from reading your comment history that you are Norwegian (something I like to do when people reply to me). What experiences have you had with Americans and 'antifa' groups in America?
I put incite in "dick quotes" to emphasize that it has become the specific word with which to paint a comment _about_ violence when you don't like the message or the messenger, not to minimize or parody what happened on the 6th.
I don't think that "calm down" is an appropriate response; you don't know anything about my state of calmness, or lack thereof. Even if you did, it's frankly not your business whether I am calm or not, nor does it affect the quality of my argument.
I appreciate your clarification, however. I withdraw my assertion that you were trying to minimize what happened on January 6th. And I apologize.
To be fair, you didn't seem to be bothered with inferring my state of mind in your original comment. Nor did your inference, even if true, change the meaning of what I said, either.
I was going to say "Calm down, Francis," as per the old movie Stripes, and then changed it, but neither would have been helpful. I apologize too.
It was concerning because it was a demonstration of significant soft-power, and I think many people are surprised or hadn't yet considered the implications of that kind of power.
Where was all of this offense concerning violence when we watched countless businesses being burned and looted throughout the summer? I'm not justifying what happened at the Capitol, but the shouts of righteous indignation ring more than a little hollow.
Private platforms, can't do shit about them, yada yada yada.
That's bullshit.
The principle, and thus the the right to free speech is the fundamental value of a free country. Hiding behind the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" is nonsense when the vast majority of communication flows through them.
I'm wondering though what happens if section 230 was modified to only allow for filtering and removal of spam (I'm expecting wiggle here in how it's abused) and illegal content.
IANAL, but common misconception is that a constitution regulates the rights between individuals/citizens of that state. But this is wrong, the constitution regulates the rights of an individual against the state/government. That is, you have the freedom of speech against any government entities and cannot be prosecuted for exercising it. But if you come to my bar/house whatever and I don't like your opinion, I can show you the door and you can't quote the constitution and refuse to leave because you are exercising your rights.
Civil Liberties don't exist if you leave them to the public sector. The US Government hosts and produces virtually nothing on it's own and just about everything you interact with is run or produced by a corporation.
If you leave the responsibility of Free Speech to the Free Market then you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.
> you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.
That's how things have traditionally been in the US, is it not? As far as I know there was never any law that would force me to allow someone else to use my (literal) printing press.
The exception is the FCC fairness doctrine, but the basis for that was that the "printing press" (RF allocations) is actually a common good, and was only granted to private interests in exchange for certain concessions.
It's how it is today and also how it was when the framers wrote the constitution. Benjamin Rush suggested a particular printer for Thomas Paine to work with to print Common Sense, because Rush knew not every printer would want to print it based on its content.
You can own a corporation with about $400 and an hour of filling out a form online, plus a month or so waiting for various government agencies to process it.
The hard part is getting that corp to own anything of value, since it starts with just the money you put in. But this is still a viable path to wealth for people with time horizons measured in years rather than days. (And all the people who want immediate gratification provides a fairly large market to trade with.)
The moment the government started giving our licenses as to who can run a bar, meaning that not just anyone can open one and bars have to be pleasing enough to the state to be allowed is the moment when the separation between private business and state ceases to be a clear well agreed upon line.
This isn't the case. The rights we have are naturally ours, by nature of our very existence, and the constitution enumerates them as a mechanism to keep the government from infringing on them. It is very clearly written this way, and to say that our foundational natural rights don't matter in any context is dystopian and authoritarian. That is to say, rights exist outside and beyond the constitution. The question is really one of e.g. my rights vs Facebook's rights.
Pump and dump schemes being regulated being framed as a free speech issue? I don't know if it is productive to make this about free speech. The purpose of life isn't just to emit speech, and indeed the purpose of WSB is for people to exhort other people to action and that action is to buy and sell certain stocks, so that a subset of participants can profit and other people lose their capital. "Speech" is not the central issue or the most interesting one to me about this case, it is rather more interesting to see how mobs can be formed and influenced to take action.
I just think it's really hypocritical of the government to advocate for freedom when they're literally making the market less free. The only markets to be regulated should be the ones that would otherwise be in market failure, like medicine.
The law isn't set up to regulate 'distributed' peer to peer pump and dumps. The precedent is all focused on clearly identifiable orchestrators.
E.g: I run a stock newsletter. I hire a boxer, Evander Tyson, to hype a biotech penny stock, Scampill Co.. Tyson says to his followers and to my newsletter subscribers that Scampill is about to get a drug approved by the FDA that will cure cancer. I and my friends at Scampill make sure that the patsies have enough stock to buy when I put out my first email blast. When the stock goes up 900% we sell our shares. At that point there are no more large lots on the market, the spreads widen, and the price collapse occurs.
The SEC then sends their feds after me, the boxer I hired, and my friends, the insiders at Scampill. If they can catch me, I do some time in club Fed and have to pay some fines.
In this instance, there is no insider collusion, there is no single promoter with an interest, and there is no commonality to build a class among the redditors etc. who participated in the manipulation. You have a mixture of people who may have said illegal things and people who had totally licit (in the eyes of the law) motivations and actions. You have a big mixture there of mens rae and its absence and a big mixture of types of actus reus and the lack thereof. It is a big mess as compared to making a case against the typical P&D mob scheme.
Yet, you have an outcome that is somewhat similar to a classic P&D, and on a regulated marketplace, whereas most P&Ds happen on less regulated over the counter markets.
I am genuinely interested in the physicality of how that would play out. A mob with pitchforks makes a run at a Facebook HQ. Do they kidnap employees until they find one with the access to re-initialize the account? I guess they would have to keep the hostages forever, else the accounts be disabled again the next day. Do they setup a camp outside with the declared intent to launch an attack should certain accounts not get enough likes? How long could that last?
Or do they break into a datacenter and attempt to do it themselves? I'm reminded of that iMac scene in Zoolander.
You are thinking to gentle and precise. Think more along the lines of setting data centers and office buildings on fire. Find anyone who has FB on a linked in profile, go their house, and burn it down. Let it all be known that it was an act of war and watch the insurance companies cover nothing.
I don’t want to be banned but... You are, I think, blessed to not be able to imagine violence. When someone says violence is an outcome the violence becomes the goal — not reinstating accounts... You don’t physically attack a DC you sever as many links in and out as possible.
It's not that those stocks hold specific value, it's that the denial of trade demonstrates to people a lack of personal power and freedom with regards to their own finances and where they may be directed.
it signifies a small loss of financial liberty and flexibility on behalf of the citizenry, which is enough to spark upset.
meanwhile large groups are allowed to systematically abuse in-place systems in a semi-visible public fashion without backlash or repercussion from regulators in most cases, exacerbating the perceived difference between 'Us and Them', fueling outrage and divide even further.
It's easy to consider why this might upset people.
Once again, no one is going to become violent over this. People aren't losing jobs, they aren't losing housing, they aren't losing food, they aren't being disappeared by balaclava'ed men in the middle of the night.
If further decreases the legitimacy of the regime currently in place, I'm not talking Democrats vs. Republicans or anything like that, I'm talking about the military-industrial complex which has got a strong financial wing added to it starting with the mid '80s. Once that legitimacy is gone then all bets are off.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
Do you honestly believe this? Somehow we'll go from not being able to buy certain stocks to violence?
Banning collecting rain water on your own property didn't do it. Abject failure of politicians keeping drinking water clean didn't do it? Not being able to buy cheese from unpasteurized milk didn't do it. Can't grow a plant in your own backyard for personal consumption. But this is it, this is the impetuous. Not being able to buy GME stock.
It's true that today's population is complacent. Many should take another look at how flimsy the reasons were why Americans fought a war of independence.
I’ve always thought that if the Revolution happened today, you’d have big media corporations like The NY Times writing hit pieces on George Washington everyday.
The American Revolution used the social media of the time, what do you think the federalist papers were all about?
A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”.
History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
Canada and the UK developed in the same post-American Revolution world as America itself did. The idea that the Commonwealth would have automatically become free is historical revisionism.
I didn’t said it automatically would be, but I would put my money on the west developing in a similar fashion as far as form of governments goes than not.
Considering that the West almost ended up being ruled by the Nazis, I’m not sure how this is remotely likely without the US existing as an independent powerhouse.
Sadly it's more than today's population. Take for instance Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a law was upheld that prevented farmers from growing food in order to prop up food prices. An Ohio farmer was forbidden to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, not even sell it.
> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
And as awful as that logic was, the absurdity was surpassed in Gonzales v. Raich [1], when the SC leveraged Wickard to conclude that the commerce clause also allows the federal government to ban activities that could affect prices in illegal markets, too.
No, I don't like seeing winners and losers in the market. I like to see winners, it's not a zero sum game.
There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
B/c TSLA shenanigans all occurred under a completely corrupted admin whose agencies will need time to rebuild. Can't believe I need to write that. It's no secret a con man was at the helm.
I can walk into any gas station in the country and blow as much money as I care to on lottery tickets. I can drive to Las Vegas and walk into a casino and do practically anything I want with my money. This is America and retail investors are (hopefully) all legal age and are participating of their own free will.
Hedge funds have treated the stock market like their own personal casino for decades. When the house starts to lose at their own game, due to their own greed, it's suddenly a problem?
Casino is right but you can't easily get to one. They're highly regulated and not everywhere for a reason, which is they make masses poor and are generally bad for the economy. Great you get tax money but you've destroyed people's lives to do it and people are a country's most valuable asset.
Don't know what you're on about the house losing here. Brokers make a killing on any trade action. Heavy retail day trading inevitably falters and ends up creating tons of poor while money flows into the pockets of a few. See: the year 2000.
People do like other people's drama. It reminds them they're not the only ones with troubles. As for zero sum, of course it's not, the market grows over time, but there def are winners and losers when you look at events up close.
Bending the knee is not right, there must be some sanity in the market. They're trying to protect mom and dad from losing their shirts.
Sanity is a relative term depending on which side of the trade one is on. Moms and Dads (if any were in GME) will lose money and make money, they are directing who will be losing.
I'm happy to change my phrase, what would you call it when brokerages unilaterally help their market makers by changing trading terms to ones that favor one side. Halting trading is usually done by an exchange.
> Market makers have no interest in owning the stock. They have no interest in being long or short. They're like a furniture or electronics store. They match buyers and sellers, and for this, they make a slim profit margin. This profit margin is known as the spread. The reason they make a profit is because risk is involved. If they sell stock to you, but the price is so volatile that it moves up and up before they can find a buyer and equal out their book, they can lose a lot of money, and they can lose it fast.
> This is why discount brokers (Robinhood, Cashapp, Webull, etc...) have stopped allowing people to buy GME, and AMC, among others. They can't find a market maker to take your order. It sucks because retail made a lot of dumb moves, and bought a lot of shares they shouldn't have bought, and they're going to lose a ton of money, but it's not a conspiracy. [1]
Eh, there's an argument to be made that maintaining a healthy market with longs and shorts produces more value in the long term. Generally I disagree with gp tho b/c people love drama even if it isn't 100 to zero.
The Federal Government does not have any restrictions on rainwater harvesting. Some states have minor regulations in terms of the amount of rainwater collecting and the means by which it is collected, but most states allow their citizens to collect rainwater while others even encourage it.
If you dig a ditch specifically to be filled with rain water, then in what sense is taking rainwater from that ditch not harvesting rainwater?
Is it no longer rainwater if it touches a ditch? Maybe it's no longer rainwater if it touches a barrel. "Haha no States have laws against harvesting rainwater, only barrel water, you fools!"
I think it's important to put this in the context of many other related issues/pressures:
* Increasing wealth inequality for several decades now
* older generations holding onto more wealth and power in society than ever before - with a large share of their wealth in the stock market
* Wall Street is seen as entirely unaccountable due to 2008 bailout
* Pandemic this year has basically been a huge wealth transfer from normal people and small businesses towards large conglomerates and the wall street hedge funds who back them
* Institutional trust is at historic lows, while online spaces become more and more regulated by those same institutions
So maybe GME stock is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but it seems like all of this has to reach a boiling point eventually. I'm not sure what that will look like, but violence wouldn't be surprising.
Nailed it. There is a context for all of what’s happening. GME may seem like a funny oddity but there is real resentment boiling underneath the surface of this event. I know it because I feel that way myself.
Everything I’ve seen from how the media covers it to how our financial institutions are forming ranks to condemn retail investors sickens me. It’s making obvious the informal lines of control the investor class use to maintain their wealth and their anger to have the average person attempting to play their game.
It’s like a giant metaphor for how screwed up our society has become.
Indeed. This kind of "fuck you i got mine" attitude is how countries are lost in extreme corruption or "third world" - third world countries are that because the people are impoverished, and the elite have everything.
We're pretty much there. Just try driving through the Midwest, or West in areas not subsumed by the mega-cities. It's sad.
Pretty much all media coverage of the GME thing boils down to “oh no! The wrong type of people are manipulating the stock market this time!” It’s pretty sickening and transparent. CNBC is like the propaganda arm of Wall Street.
Watching some CNBC clips yesterday is what convinced to put a couple hundred bucks into GME for the hell of it.
I'm pretty lucky, I happened to like computers and got into a field that pays decently well for now. I have no illusions that that I'm not working class though. I watched my parents nearly get crushed in 07/08. I graduated into a economic war zone. Watching the banks get bailed out as I went to parties hosted by kids whose parents were losing the house. Seeing the kids who used to live in the house encourage everyone to punch holes in the drywall because fuck the bank.
I haven't forgotten what Wall Street did to us. The wealth inequality in this country is insane. The elites have been treating the working class like dirt for decades now.
With that context... those CNBC clips made me livid. Fuck the Wall Street propaganda. I'll chip in my little piece if there's a remote chance of taking down one or two of the vultures who are destroying this country with their greed. Much of the finance class that runs this country builds nothing, provides nothing, and tears down communities so they can shake a few coins out of the wreckage.
In talking with my friends who voted for Trump, this is the first time I've been able to feel on the page as them in a long time. There is class rage at play here. People are sick of this system.
CNBC is like that, sure. But I’ve found articles in places like Bloomberg and NYT to be quite even handed about it all. If I recall the NYT article even ends with a quote from a pastor’s wife(!): “eat the rich”.
Here's an exception in the media: Saagar Enjeti at The Hill Rising. It's a great take on the situation and he's happy to see Wall Street get kicked in the face: https://youtu.be/9ToOGrUQ7ME
Both hosts at The Hill Rising have great commentary. Not always perfect, but generally much more piercing through the usual inane mass media coverage. (other coverage on the Hill is ok but more hit or miss IMO)
Agreed. I watch at least one segment of theirs pretty much every single day. I don't always care about some of the things they cover (especially the when they're criticizing something someone said in Congress), and sometimes I don't fully agree with their takes on things, but overall they're great.
I have former Gamestop employees that hate the company and want to see its demise on my feed going 'Good. Fuck these hedge funds,' knowing full well that people are injecting money into a company they hate.
When it gets to that, it seems to me that there's some serious anger built up.
> Increasing wealth inequality for several decades now
TV talking heads bemoan about this, but billionaires still remain the most admired people in this country (Trump, Musk, Gates, etc).
> older generations holding onto more wealth and power in society than ever before - with a large share of their wealth in the stock market
If there was anger at the older generation, we wouldn't have so many sacred cows regarding older people (social security and medicare). Average age of senator and house member has been growing over time. Hell, we just elected a 78 year old as president. How about before the revolution we just start with voting for younger people
> Wall Street is seen as entirely unaccountable due to 2008 bailout
Most people don't remember this. I'm surprised how rarely its actually discussed
> Pandemic this year has basically been a huge wealth transfer from normal people and small businesses towards large conglomerates and the wall street hedge funds who back them
This is mostly true but people don't see it that way. They're too busy yelling at people that refuse to wear masks or people that are forcing others to wear masks.
> Institutional trust is at historic lows, while online spaces become more and more regulated by those same institutions
Again, we elected a 40+ year veteran politician. House and Senate re-election rates are still 85%+ and we're ceding ever more of our authority to the [health] experts.
You don’t really get much of a choice on who you vote for, you just get to pick which of the two parties occupies your seat. We should eliminate parties entirely and just go back to a vanilla republic where you pick someone from your community to represent you. Repeal the 17th amendment, return the Presidential electors back to being chosen by the legislators, who are voted in only by the will of their local constituents rather than the blessing of the party.
There were 29 major candidates for Democratic party this year. The Democratic primaries were very competitive, and turnout was high (all things considering). Why do you think you'd have different results nationally?
> TV talking heads bemoan about this, but billionaires still remain the most admired people in this country (Trump, Musk, Gates, etc).
Okay, now include Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers :)
But in all serious, I'm not talking about anecdotal "admiration" of billionaires. I'm talking about literal wealth gaps[1]. The Bottom 50% of the US held 21% of the wealth in 1970, and the Top 1% held 11% of the wealth.
21% to 11%. By 2014 this had changed to 13% to 20%. Meaning the top 1% doubled its share of the wealth while the bottom 50% lost 38% of its share of the national wealth.
> If there was anger at the older generation, we wouldn't have so many sacred cows regarding older people (social security and medicare). Average age of senator and house member has been growing over time. Hell, we just elected a 78 year old as president. How about before the revolution we just start with voting for younger people
There is massive systemic momentum keeping these programs in place untouched as they are because of gridlock in the national government, I'm not really sure how their existence supports or rejects my point. I agree younger people need to be more active in the voting process and to elect younger people. I'm optimistic about several state-level voting reforms gaining momentum in the coming years to help this.
But at least at the presidential level, our arcane primary/caucus and electoral college systems give a huge advantage to older people living in rural areas. There has been increasing consolidation of young voters in urban areas which are severely under-represented in choosing the president.
And of course campaigns are financed by large wealthy interests that are mostly controlled by older generation who have an incentive to maintain the status quo. As long as we don't have congressional term limits, poor campaign finance regulation, and a massively gridlocked Congress, it's difficult for the state of things to change from what we have, which is domination by those lobbyists and a federal government which doesn't accurately reflect its populace.
> Most people don't remember this. I'm surprised how rarely its actually discussed
What is your definition of Most People? This comes up every time I've ever seen wealth inequality, accountability and government bailouts discussed (A lot in 2020, naturally).
> This is mostly true but people don't see it that way. They're too busy yelling at people that refuse to wear masks or people that are forcing others to wear masks.
It's concretely felt among those who have lost money, jobs and opportunities. Twitter arguments about masks can be present at the same time as the literal felt effect. Anyone who has followed economic news this year has seen the repercussions even if they weren't directly impacted. In my opinion you're underestimating the mood on this, but I'd like to see some data on it.
> Again, we elected a 40+ year veteran politician. House and Senate re-election rates are still 85%+ and we're ceding ever more of our authority to the [health] experts.
I already talked about federal government above^ But I think this has actually been an incredibly interesting year in that divergence from health experts became "mainstream". Tons of people getting Covid news from people on Twitter who called out studies being used by mainstream press and national governments to justify their policy decisions. I can point out a dozen random people on twitter who I trust more than NYT or Dr. Fauci to give me relevant, contextualized analysis of different COVID-19 strategies around the world. And most importantly, there's little social risk to this. I can tell that to people and they don't think I'm a quack. Half of them do are doing the same thing.
Additionally, you're seeing protests break out across the world as governments try to lock-down and re-lock-down without legitimately st...
To be fair, Wall Street's been unaccountable for a while. The 2008 was just a large example of this.
Do you have a reference for older people having more wealth? There's definitely a smaller number of people holding more wealth, but I haven't read about older people holding more wealth.
Saying that there's wealth deficit for millennials/genx because boomers have accumulated more wealth later in life is a little handy-wavy.
What did the boomer chart look like when they were 20-35? What will the genx chart look like when they're 50-70? And what will the millennial chart look like when they're 30-70?
> Saying that there's wealth deficit for millennials/genx because boomers have accumulated more wealth later in life is a little handy-wavy.
That's not what the chart I linked is claiming. The Boomer
line goes back to when they were 35. Not sure what the data limitations were preventing it from going back further. Meanwhile all age data is shown for Gen X.
I'm not sure what you mean about the future chart? I guess we'll have to wait and see :-)
But anyway, this chart appears to answer the question: "which generation had more relative wealth in its early 30s?"
One possible problem is that generational earnings are a function of economic conditions. These may average out over a lifetime, but if we look at restricted intervals, it may seem like newer generations have less wealth even if they end up having similar overall wealth over their lifetime.
Leaving out boomer data from ~18-35 makes me a little more suspicious of cherry picking because that data could be similar. It may also show boomers gaining even more wealth, but if it's not available we can't know.
Robinhood is in a heads I win, tails you lose scenario with the press here. Wealth inequality will get even worse if regular people lose a ton of money on GME. They already fucked up by causing one guy to commit suicide, so you can't blame them for playing it safe this time.
It's literal. There are a number of states that make it outright illegal to collect rain water even if you're doing it to water your own garden during droughts.
When buying property, you may have agreed that you were not acquiring mineral rights, water rights, etc. and you still might have problems even in the absence of a government rule against it. I don't know how legitimate such claims are or how often they're successful, but I know someone who got legal nasty-grams from a land developer for doing it, and the property owner backed off when they saw the papers they had signed again.
I believe they were usually enacted to protect the nearby properties that the runoff went to, not to help water utilities and water rights buyers make more money, and to protect sources for streams and creeks and rivers.
Also, I don't think most of them were bans. I think they usually just limited the extent of it. Some barrels collecting from the downspouts from your roof--fine. Building a huge reservoir filled by rain--not fine.
And they haven't been all repealed. A few states still have restrictions, such as freely allowing collecting anything that falls on the roofs of your buildings as long as the building weren't specifically to collect rainwater but requiring approval for anything else.
I do agree with you when it comes to the surface level idea of buying a particular stock. However, the fight here isnt about that. This is a fight between the public mixed with low level capitalist (sub 8 digit yearly earnings) and the billionaire well... oligarchy of hedge funds. The hedge funds are putting pressure on gov and media to stop allowing the general public from doing something. This was originally a fight to screw over a hedge fund that was picking on Gamestop to bankrupt them through predatory short selling. Its blown up to now the hedge funds trying to manipulate public discourse, media discourse and the public's ability to participate in the market. Originally, capitalism is about anyone has the ability to participate in business and the market equally, regardless of their family lineage or social class. Obviously reality is messier than theory, but you no longer need to have a royal family name to own land or start a business. Hedge funds, banks and others are trying to accomplish the same old, "kiss my ring", just with slightly different tactics.
We live in interesting times. This is surreal coming from Ray Dalio
"I believe we are on the brink of a terrible civil war (as I described in The Changing World Order series), where we are at an inflection point between entering a type of hell of fighting or pulling back to work together for peace and prosperity..."
Didn’t it already happen in the capitol insurrection? Will it happen again with some other collection of people? Historically high inequality societies see high instability and even revolution.
> Do you honestly believe this? Somehow we'll go from not being able to buy certain stocks to violence?
It isn't simply that people can't buy certain stocks. Its an accumulation of events that increasingly lead people to believe that the system is rigged against them. This extends back decades. You have to have been living under a rock to have missed the rising tide of populist sentiment over the last decade, as seen in the pro-Trump anti-establishment contingent on the right, and the explosion of pro-socialist sentiment on the far left.
This Gamestop business probably amounts to a large bucketful of water, but at a certain point, a single drop causes the dam to burst. Kicking the can down the road by saying "surely people won't resort to violence over this" all but ensures that eventually, people will.
This isn't about buying stock any more. This has become a battleground. The people in this thread are normal people fighting back for the first time in their lives.
I mean it could be not "it" but the "it" that triggers this build-up of tension. People are fed up (and rightly so) of the elite gaming the system.
KYC is fine if you are a multi-millionaire. You just delegate your lawyers and army of accountants to do it. But if you are a small man/company, it's a headache that can drive you out of business.
This financial restrictions has to be stopped. Financial freedom is more important than Freedom of expression.
I think the point is the general cut on freedoms more than any of the individual steps. For some people the increasing power given to corporations and governments to cut people freedom and putting their rights in front of individual rights (the pilar of all mordern western democracies).
The fenomenon is global by the way, but it still has been dominated by classic political tags on the media, like alt-right vs commie etc. A very few polititians broke that pattern the last 5 years or so, won'tt give any names, because all that labels I mentioned,
Agree. It is not like there aren't half a dozen apps that let you trade stocks commission free on your phone. Some may require you to have $500-$1k to invest, but seriously if you don't have that you should invest in a different way then treading individual stocks.
That said, I have no idea why Robin Hood should ban the trading of GME and I wish they wouldn't.
And lets be honest, the overlap between retail investors trying to buy meme stocks and people who regarded Parler as their true voice isn't going to be that huge (and the relationship between AWS and Robinhood's compliance teams negligible). Anyone sufficiently motivated to see strong connections between the actions of AWS booting Parler and Robinhood restricting trades is going to be so accustomed to seeing everything through a fact-lite 'us vs the man' lens that it barely matters what corporations actually do. And those tempted by actual violence have had other causes to attach themselves to over the last 12 months anyway.
Also this isn't people 'asserting themselves financially', this is people mug punting on a stock that wealthier and more financially savvy people who got in early are happy to unload their stock to. There will end up being people quite relieved they didn't get to execute their plan to put their life savings into peak-price Gamestop.
> ...the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
I wonder how big the intersection is between people saying this now and people who said that the Black Lives Matter protests were violent (when they largely weren't).
> there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too
It's not the same people. I keep seeing efforts to compare the deplatforming of violent and radical white supremacists that were using platforms to coordinate a coup to whatever other unpopular thing is happening today. I suspect that's an attempt to cultivate a little sympathy for people who have none for others.
Yes, large investment firms appear to be circling their wagons now and making moves through media partners and others to try to stop the bleeding. That's an entertaining enough event all on its own, it doesn't need specious comparisons to other recent events.
Vague predictions of inevitable violence (never "when we start a civil war", always "when the civil war happens" or "when the shit hits the fan") does seem like a hallmark of the far right, or white grievance.
Yes. You can now see the true extent of their tricks and possible ways of shaking the WSB traders. Obviously these large guys are using their influence and connections to drive FUD, lies and fake news to frame their enemy / target (/r/WSB) to give in and sell. Even the stock brokers are in on it. All of this to protect the losses of the irresponsible and the greediest of hedge-funds and short-sellers.
Best part? They are not even hiding it. Everyone can see the message.
In order for it to be paranoia, it has to be irrational. So I'd say you're the only one who even sees it as paranoia in the first place. Because the evidence that it's happening is literally right in front of your face.
If I were running a financial brokerage I'd totally do this, too. It's not a matter of "helping my hedge fund broker friends", it's a matter of "how do we keep the SEC off our backs". Remember: Robinhood is already being charged with securities law violation for giving their customers a raw deal on order execution.
We usually don't see distributed market manipulation like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a shitton of people buying GameStop to squeeze a short-seller breaks securities law. Does it feel good to get one up on a hedge fund idiot that was trying to manipulate GameStop the other way? Yes - but this is, at best, financial vigilantism.
There’s nothing illegal about buying a stock, or even voicing your opinion about a stock.
If only value investing was legal, the stock market look and operate very differently to today.
Edited to add: ultimately the law should be there to prevent fraud, not to restrict capital ownership and financial autonomy to a handful of cronies. You know, what they call a free market.
Incidentally, if this had been a properly regulated market to begin with, the price inflation would not have been possible.
If you're able to rally people on social media is that manipulation? I'm not so sure.
I think it's very risky for the investors but I don't know whether the SEC has stuff that would cover this.
And even if there were a law, if you somehow have your thumb on the social media hype button then how would you enforce that law? Makes me think nothing unruly is going on, just a bubble that will inevitably collapse and make Musk etc. rich once more just like during the dot com era. Some people only know how to make money through theft and I'm not surprised we've found ourselves here after the last 4 years.
Yea - i'm confused on what the definition of manipulation is here.
If i tell you GME has a new product line that will increase their wealth 10x - that seems like manipulation. If i say to you i'm buying GME and you should too, with clear disclaimers that this isn't financial advice but rather a meme - i don't think i manipulated you.
By "normal" definition manipulation requires some about of deception/etc. I don't think "anyone" (within obvious reason) is being manipulated here. It's very clear what the community is buying into.
So i come back to what "manipulation" is defined as in the stock sense. Is it meaningfully different?
Is it? If I have the money to put a short squeeze on someone by myself, with my own money, is that illegal? Isn't that what some people do all the time with smaller numbers?
This is not a pump and dump. In PnD, there is an element of subterfuge - the people you are selling to are unaware of what is going on. In this play, all actors are fully informed of what is going on. I mean, maybe some people don't really understand the details, but the majority of people here aren't buying GME because they think it'll keep going up; they all know it's overvalued, but they don't care, because the goal is only partially to make a profit. 'Pump and dump' isn't illegal per se, what is illegal is lying about fundamentals or circumstances to influence stock price. That is not what is happening here.
Furthermore, if you're arguing that it's illegal because it's done in group, then I don't understand what legal basis you are using for that. I also don't understand why you'd say it's "very different" from doing it on your own. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that legal to do on your own, but illegal in group (some things are more illegal in a group, but that's not what we're talking about)
No this is EMH at work. Main street has realized that they can attack short positions which are unnatural in size. And they intend to get paid for doing it.
Hedge funds are so used to being the only tool on the block, they overextended, and for the first(?) time the retail side is fighting back.
The professional investing world have so many advantages over main street that it's not even funny. They've got everything from frontrunning, colocation, free money, and leverage(10x), 'unsophisticated' investors only can dream of this. And when they do go belly up, tax payers bail them out, meanwhile the bonus machine keeps churning.
But it is funny and good when main street actually catches them with their hand in the cookie jar.
I'm still shit at these things, but so far, I seriously cannot understand how hedge funds get away with "shorting", but people doing the same thing in reverse is market manipulation. From this (admittedly naive) POV, this sounds like double standards.
Holding a short position (selling before you buy) or a long position (buying before you sell) are both valid and legal trading decisions on their own. Market manipulation arises out of context. When you start tweeting about how you should totally sell a stock that you have a short position on, then you start stepping into illegal behavior.
In other words, the capital firm that got short-squeezed by the idiots at /r/WSB were also doing something illegal. It's not the case that the short is legal but the longs aren't. Alternatively, if the argument is that /r/WSB isn't market-manipulating, they just think the stock is undervalued, then the hedge fund can use the same argument. "We think this stock is overvalued so we shorted it" is how they'll explain it to the SEC.
And that's not an invalid position: GME has been suspiciously overvalued way before any of the parties involved started holding positions. It's a retail-heavy business in pandemic season with multiple year-over-year same-store sales cuts. What that means is that, for each one of their stores, on average, they sold 30% less product in Q3 2020 than they did in Q3 2019. And even if you think, "oh, that's just the COVID economy, they'll be back"; Q3 2019 sales were already 20% down from the year before. This is a company nobody wanted to buy games from even before a novel coronavirus decided to close a good chunk of their stores.
The fun fact about that above explanation is that it provides plausible deniability for someone trying to juice the market in a particular direction. Hell, if /r/WSB hadn't caught the hedge fund with their pants down, they probably would have gotten off scot-free. However, the financial vigilantes dumping fat stacks into GME don't have the same kind of excuse - they explicitly coordinated in public fora to manipulate stock price, so it's an easy target for an SEC that really doesn't get the budget necessary to prosecute the complex kinds of financial crimes they're tasked with.
So, from a legal perspective, both parties are in the wrong. From an enforcement perspective, /r/WSB is a soft target.
I think you missed most of the story. The stock was massively undervalued before attracting the attention of WSB. The first posts were when it was valued less than the cash it was holding.
On top of that, you have the beginnings of a takeover by a successful e-commerce CEO and potential for real turnaround.
That would have been enough on its own for WSB longs to jump in, but then the hedge funds shorted over 100% of the stock making it the perfect powder keg for this explosion.
The same thing in reverse isn't market manipulation. Buying call options or the stock itself is legal.
What can be market manipulation is to collude with others to move a stock price not because you believe it is worth a different amount, but because you predict others will react to the movement you create. That applies to collusion involving shorts (bear raids) too. Proving the collusion and the artificial price bit is the difficult bit
> Does it feel good to get one up on a hedge fund idiot that was trying to manipulate GameStop the other way? Yes - but this is, at best, financial vigilantism.
Hedge funds do this to each other every day. Why is it suddenly wrong when it’s retail investors on the other side of the trade?
I truly do not understand the naïveté of arguments like these. Only the wealthy should be allowed to game the price of assets and rip each other off?
If you remove the short squeeze part. It is still a pump and dump. Someone is going to be holding the bag when the stock comes back down. That is going to be retail investors.
It's also ironic that one of the supposed ethos of Bitcoin is to circumvent these powers that be - meanwhile every time there's an upward surge in pricing Coinbase conveniently isn't accessible which temporarily blocks impulse sellers and stops a rush of the "army of HODLers" from selling. If this behaviour isn't illegal it certainly should be, it's manipulation.
When that happens it's usually at the same time as a huge influx of new users and/or user activity.
I agree it's somewhat suspicious if it happens all the time, like this has happened enough times why haven't you designed your infrastructure to handle surges more gracefully, but for the most part I think it's legit.
If we assume intentional malice every time a website goes down, that's a dangerous precedent for the tech industry.
The corporations I've worked for had nothing to do with finances but managed to have several major outages I've sat in on that have lasted as little as 2 hours and as much as 48 hours. They were pretty much always network or server related, sometimes unrelated to the business entirely (a T1 line got cut accidentally by the city in one case).
Those corporations didn't want to go down, and often lost some serious money as a result. I imagine Coinbase loses out on a good amount of money every time they go down as well.
I also expect it's at least somewhat overreported or only a partial outage as well. One person has an issue and announces it and everyone just repeats it without checking themselves. There was at least two instances when I saw people say Coinbase was down and I tried logging in myself and had no issues.
By crashing, or giving the appearance of crashing, Coinbase, Kraken etc maintain plausible deniability. RH is going whole hog "look at us, we are denying you the ability to buy this security so that hedge funds can drive the price down, and all you can do is sell your existing position - can't even short it if you like"
Bitcoin is a monetary escape valve from the current financial system according to Janet Yellen. It’s a 20 year long trend that can work peer to peer even without any exchange. Of course Coinbase makes things simpler, but it’s not needed.
> This sort of stuff will put people more and more on edge, there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too
Don't compare deplatforming and this.
Deplatforming is akin to throwing a customer out of the grocery store for doing nazi salutes in the vegetable aisle.
What Robinhood is doing is akin to throwing a customer out of the grocery store because you don't agree with his choice of vegetables.
This is a twitter post of a screenshot. There's almost no substance here. We don't know why or even if this happened. So the immediate leap to talk of violence as a reaction is incendiary.
Only because I think it's prudent to wait until more information is available (than was provided in the original link) before talking about violent repercussions.
I have little doubt that it's happening, but the twitter link was not substantive in comparison to:
Violence against whom and how? Do the powers that rule the USA truly fear any commoners? I doubt it, the rich are ensconced in private jets, mansions, posh offices, and do not interact with commoners, nor are they easily targeted due to lack of proximity and knowledge. It's not like the French Revolution, where the mobs knew precisely where the king, queen, and legislature were, and could assail them personally.
Serious question. Is the whole David vs Goliath narrative unfounded?
Over the last 8-10 years online activism/mobs have increasingly been co-opted by those in power as a means of astroturfing. I think it is totally fair to be skeptical and ask whether that is going on here.
One thing is for sure. Even if this is organic, it won’t be next time. After seeing this why wouldn’t some hedge fund orchestrate something like this to manipulate the market?
What narrative am I coming with? My comment is questioning the prevailing David vs Goliath narrative. Based on past events, I think there is enough of a prior probability of astroturfing to be skeptical. We will find out whether this was organic or not as things evolve.
But it would be a mistake to not think that some hedge fund manager, oligarch, etc. somewhere is paying attention and thinking about how they might be able to co-opt.
Honestly, I don't see where the attempt to equate the WSB people out to make a quick buck by gambling and hope they win out over the hedge funds as being that connected to the deplatforming of right wing people - I'm sure given "the right" and "wall street bets" are large groups that there is some overlap, but in Europe I know plenty of people following along the stock market with no connection to current US issues.
People have found an unpopular target (large funds, still a lot of dislike built up over the 2008 recession, current inflated housing markets in many cities) and there's a swing in popular emotion and yes, public figures have egged it on at this stage, but it's not really a protest against donald trump's deplatforming or liberal elites that some people are trying to make it out to be.
Plenty more people willing to take risks on that among the middle class when the stock market is the only way to even keep the value of their savings anyway. My savings account has an actual interest rate that was cut from 0.50% to 0.01% this year, whereas 2020 excluded, inflation has been around 1% in my country. Many of my friends in similar situations have gotten involved in stocks under a similar background and a not insignificant number of them are operating under logic like "90% in long term stocks, 10% for whatever crazy long bets" (like which airlines are going to come out of this, whatever stock reddit is pumping at the moment, bitcoin or companies like AMD a few months ago which they're like "I use this stuff and so many insitutional investors are completely clueless on the market dynamics").
So you get people with "stupid bets" funds, and an idea that gets momentum (The shorts cannot not buy, let's outwait them), and this is the result.
Yeah, there isn't necessarily a ton of overlap. I'm pretty liberal but I follow this stuff, not so much WSB (and no skin in the game for this GME craziness) but crypto, and put money I'm willing to lose into these things periodically. I've lost some money, sure, but I'm significantly up overall.
>This is why I put academic fields adjacent to "identity politics" in the same category as climate change
This is why academic fields involved with "identity politics" are in the same class as "scientists" involved in climate change denial and questionable nutrition/smoking studies. Once there were academics involved in "critic theory" which more or less used Marxist level of analysis. A thorn in the side of the establishment. A branch within this field took the language of Marxism but replaced capitalist/working class with identities(e.g white men/minority women). Ofcourse those in power have supported this branch of critic theory and have gotten to the point where they even use it as a wedge issue. At this point this is the orthodox branch of "critic theory" and it's not because of intellectual merit.
Remember how quaint Occupy Wall St. seemed back in 2011? They were maligned as a bunch of privileged wannabe hippie kids. The economy was "hopelessly complex" and "how were we to know" etc. Seems we're way past that, to blatant protection of the wealthy over a fluctuation in .025% of the stock market.
Perhaps but Americans won't result to violence en mass. Despite what you may have seen, Americans are rather docile. A small minority of folks who just so happened to be of military age during the country's longest war but never signed up to fight are the same people who buy the most guns and saber rattle about civil war, etc...
I worked in proprietary trading for about half a decade.
I think the biggest thing that the lay-person doesn't understand is that thinking of hedge funds (and other proprietary firms), banks, exchanges and ATS's, retail brokerages, the SEC, and lawmakers as all being either one entity or all being on the same side is just absolutely incorrect. They all need each other, but by and large they are not friends.
Some claims I've seen that are just comical to me:
"The SEC is going to step in to save hedge funds"
The relationship between regulators and proprietary firms is particularly cagey. The SEC constantly audits them and asks, in my ex-professional opinions, extremely annoying questions about even the most innocuous trading activity. (Annoying because they take so much time because frequently, not knowing what the firm is doing, they ask questions that internal tooling is just not prepared to answer, thus requiring custom development; and annoying because some of them feel like they're just the SEC trying to use their authority to conduct audits to learn more about the industry). But I digress. The SEC is absolutely not going to step in and do a prop shop a favor. Their concern is with the efficient and accurate functioning of the equities market. The fact the GME, a company with no news releases and no change in their (honestly dismal) fundamentals, has experienced such absolutely insane volatility (there are large numbers of options contracts with less volatility, for crying out loud!) is absolutely a concern for them. The fact that "what is the price of GME right now", asked to a person who looked at Apple Stocks app yesterday but not yet today, is "somewhere between 10 dollars and 1000 dollars", is absolutely a major cause for concern to them. Equity markets exist to discover pricing and transfer risk. It's hard to transfer risk if you don't have any idea of the pricing!
"retail brokerages are cancel culturing the GME rocketship!" and similar rhetoric, especially with aphorisms suggesting that the SEC or shadowy "the rich and powerful" are pressing them to do so.
I really, really doubt it. Retail brokerages toe a very fine line, because on one hand they obviously really want people to store their money with them (e.g. Schwab makes like 80% of its operating revenue from interest on uninvested cash balances) and also to use their trading services. But at the same time, they are taking as clients some of the most dangerous creatures known to man: retail investors. They're dangerous because they have so little clue what they're doing (which is like, fine, you know? this is no judgement on them) that there is a very real responsibility places on the retail brokerage to protect them from themselves. There's a reason you have to apply and be approved to trade options, and there's various levels of approval for various risk categories too. You need at least 25k in balances to be a pattern day trader. There's precedent for brokerages limiting access to some ETFs that expose equities investors to the kinds of leveraged risk that is more typical of options. Brokerages have been sued - successfully - for not doing their fiduciary duty to educate investors about risk.
I am absolutely unsurprised that retail brokerages are limiting trading of GME, AMC, etc. I can already see the lawsuits coming when this thing folds - "Why did you let me trade GME given the volatility, especially after the SEC even made a statement about it? I am a retail investor and your client, and cannot be expected to know better, and you failed in your fiduciary duty to me." This is absolutely something a retail brokerage would do to protect themselves from regulatory scrutiny.
(I had more to vent, but this post is already huge so I'll stop here. You get my gist, though.)
> Even more with some irresponsible newspapers blaming the whole thing on GamerGate and Alt-Right, effectively pushing away people that previously could be on their side.
I didn't read any such claim in my German and Scandinavian news diet, is this a US-only thing? Here, the consensus seems to be that what happens is a somewhat well-deserved embarrassment.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
I think creating and using decentralized alternatives beyond the control of the state and affiliated corporations is a much better tool for creating lasting change. Violent revolutions tend to just replace (or restyle) the ruling class without significant changes to their behavior.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
They do realize that and are confident that they will win. In the end it boils down to that.
In here we have a case of the wrong people succeeding at a game that de jure is supposed to be open to everyone but de facto is only open to the right people.
"They're a private company! They can restrict their product for corrupt political and financial purposes and this is good... for... reasons... at least that's what the tv/social media told me."
I hope you get well soon. Maybe see a psychiatrist.
You are taking Stocks linking them to alt-right then to violence. What? You look like a close devotee of an incompetent president whom we just fired. He was also super-spreader of conspiracy theories. No one had any problem with any other conservative president or progressive for that matter until he showed up.
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?
This is a dangerous thing to say in 2021. Merely suggesting violence is an option or eventuality could be considered incitement and get you banned from every major internet platform.
> GamerGate
Actually it seems related to me. Leveraged short-selling is a tactic of activist investors to take control of a company, and there was an article about what they wanted to do with it. No doubt the past actions of activist investors in the gaming industry was fuel for this fire. I’m not a gamer and I don’t know what is going on, but I think it has something to do with getting rid of the ownership model of games to make way for cloud gaming and advertising, served with a political agenda. GameStop made the ownership model work. Every major cloud service provider, social media company, and their investors all want it gone. Gamers know that ownership is the only way to keep politics out of gaming.
Some people are complaining to me that this comment is an implicit call to violence. It's not so hard to see why they might be reading it that way.
Please don't post like that to HN. Instead, either post comments that are unambiguously within the site guidelines to begin with, or be careful to disambiguate your intent. Otherwise we end up in flamewar hell or something even worse than flamewar hell.
"Free marketeers declare markets a little too free for their tastes"
I've been really enjoying watching this whole thing pan out but you had to know that the 'professional capitalists' who brought us the economic crisis in 2009 would close ranks and appeal to the SEC to save them from the vicious retail investors. Robin Hood doesn't want to be banished to the proverbial wastelands because their customers are more clever than some hedge fund operators.
I'd argue Robinhood customers are not more clever, but they are more irrational/motivated by non-market goals.
Getting absolutely wrecked by irrational market behaviour is a rite of passage for small traders, and it's only fair that some bigger hedge funds should learn that lesson too.
Some of them were sophisticated enough to see the short squeeze opportunity and realized it was possible to exploit it. Melvin Capital kept pouring more good money after bad in a classic and literal sunk-cost fallacy. This is all completely rational behavior by WSB investors, taking advantage of the short squeeze.
At a fundamental level GME just got a new activist investor/board member with a history of revitalizing retail operations and turning them around. This would be a rational reason to invest in GameStop at a basic level.
This is just the status quo realizing their position can be threatened and the easy money the wealthy have rolling in can be taken by average people acting in concert.
Same with TD Ameritrade. Fidelity seems to still allow trading for now.
I guess the simultaneous outage wasn’t coincidental. Fidelity did not suffer and outage. I could be wrong but Vanguard was fine too
EDIT
Robinhood's customer(s) are hedge funds like Citadel. I believe it was Citadel who offered Melvin Capital a lifeline. I wonder what the rationale is for TD Ameritrade, and the others?
In the night, GME went from 350 to 250 USD as well; this was when Discord had been banned and the Reddit suspended (both for moderation / hate speech issue).
The variations are extreme, in the morning it was hitting 500 USD in the morning, and now 400 USD.
Pretty staggering hubris from the company whose shoddy software used to offer "infinite leverage"[0] to make themselves the self-appointed guardians of responsible investing.
Maybe one of these newly-minted millionaires can cash out and use their gains to sue.
Ah cool so does this mean that all the other stocks are safe and will only make me money? Very cool of Robin Hood to protect me from ever being exposed to any risk like this. It’s just really cool to know that they remove the ones that can lose me money.
Very cool of robinhood to protect me by tanking my stock position simply because it’s as odds with their wallet. What a fucking sham of a company and if there isn’t some serious legal repercussions of it, then I don’t know what even would qualify as “market manipulation”.
Can someone help me understand Robinhood's POV? This just seems so outrageous that there must be some sane rationale that I'm not seeing.
Why do Robinhood, Reddit, Discord, etc feel like they have to respond to this? Whether the investments being made are responsible or not, it doesn't seem like it should be their place to intervene.
If the hedge funds over-shorted GME and WSB recognized that and traded against that bad analysis, then that's great! If the pendulum swung the other direction and WSB is trading into some momentum, how is that any different than the hedge funds doing the same with shorts? Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)?
One of Robinhood's main business partner is Citadel (RH sells their order flow to Citadel). Citadel is also the firm that has bailed out Melvin Capital, one of the hedge funds that took a huge short position in GME.
I follow the bitcoin crowd a bit. Everyday they issue claims like 'bitcoin was made to free us from wealthy people games' it felt echo chamber / tinfoil at times. This isn't hurting their theories.
> During the recent bitcoin bull run, Coinbase has struggled to keep itself up during stretches of heavy volume, leading to snarky comments on Twitter and Reddit that it’s only news when the exchange doesn’t go down during peak periods. Given the exchange has filed preliminary documents for a public listing of the company’s shares, fixing its infrastructure has undoubtedly taken on an even greater urgency.
Going down is one degree lower than officially displaying a 'you cannot buy <security>' on your app. I know DDoS smell bad but it's not the same. And mind you I lost profits on the latest DDoS.
Don't forget that crypto exchanges have none of the properties of cryptocurrencies themselves, in terms of censorship resistance and cryptographic guarantees. Since fiat currencies are involved and these are businesses operating in countries with laws, they have to enforce whatever the government wants to require of them. They can absolutely halt trading, or freeze funds or assets on their platform at any time.
DEXes, however, can be designed so that no person can halt trading or freeze your funds (usually you trade out of your own wallet anyway). A DEX is just a computer program running on the Ethereum blockchain. Once deployed, the blockchain is immutable, and it just sits there accepting orders.
Wealthy people games exist in bitcoin as well. Especially now with all the institutional investment and futures markets. I say this as a long-time bitcoin fanboy as well.
One’s a market maker + bank, one’s a fund. I understand it’s against the grain to hold this opinion, probably because it’s inherently not conspiratorial, but they do different things and regulated/managed entirely differently.
They are still owned by the same group of people, with conflicting interests: one side supports a trading platform, the other side just bailed out a moribund fund and needs to make that money back.
What side do you think wins given the huge hole left in Citadel after propping up Melvin?
You keep saying that but they are literally sub companies of the same larger conglomerate. Their CEO and founder is the same person, he is also both of their primary shareholders.
So FYI, the Reddit WSB "shutdown" was temporary and on purpose (by the mod admins) to clean up the page a bit. It was private for an hour or two and back up.
Discord, not so. Looking at the financial backers of Discord, you can pretty quickly draw a link to the short sellers. Presumably some phone calls or dinners were had last night and strings were pulled to shut the discord down.
This will be somewhat difficult to prove because the WSB discord (for the hour I was in it) was more or less a walking terms of service violation, near totally consisted of "ironic" racial slurs and "ironic" racist memes, n/f-word everywhere.
It was clearly taken over by folks intending to have it shut down because it did not look like that prior to this GME bet gaining media attention. There is a lot of extremely questionable things happening around this event leading me to think that some very wealthy people are trying to prevent their shorts getting blown up at all costs. Even on HN I’ve been seeing weird posts on these threads.
Eh, that blatant offensive nature is a 4chan holdover, which WSB proudly embraces. Plenty of millennials are former /b/ browsers, now in their 30s and some with plenty of disposable income.
I've struggled with this in some friend groups, particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
> I've struggled with this in some friend groups, particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
Can you elaborate this some more? Are you saying that you've struggled with this because people take that 4chan attitude they grew up with into their IRL lives and are assholes to your son with ASD?
Figuring out just how they're assholes in real life helps understand and contextualize the problem better. Are they oblivious, or dropping offensive memes at his kid, etc?
Does it really matter? If you reach your mid-30s and haven't figured out that mocking someone with ASD is wrong, I'm not going to waste my time educating you. I'll simply cut you out of my life, gradually or all at once.
?? I asked the question more because I was just curious if there are legitimately like mid-30 year old groups of friends that haven't grown out of this "4chan attitude" of using the n-word, calling people "autists", etc.
I didn't ask out of a sense of voyeurism. More like a, "dang, is this something I need to watch out for when I get older?"
Cheers. And yes, I'm totally aware of how awful and toxic those parts of the internet are, but usually those toxic and awful people hide it more when you talk to them in real life.
most of that is self aware deprecation from other autists. frankly being able to joke and shittalk with eachother makes it a lot easier to deal with having autism and everything that comes with it.
Not really? Children frequently demonstrate the same behavior. Laugh at the kid with X problem until you have a problem yourself, and now you dislike bullies.
Growing older and realizing in general that things you did when you were younger are bad is fine and dandy, and indeed is "growing up".
But only deciding things are bad when they personally effect you has nothing to do with growing older and is not a good look. It's just selfish myopia.
Being an adult with a consistent moral framework is about being able to say "this is right or wrong", regardless of if it effects you personally or not. If you only notice something is bad when it happens to you, then that's basically what kids do automatically.
Huh, that's strange, because the comment I read said:
> ...particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism...
Which to me says the dichotomy in particular is "before autism personally affected me" and "after autism personally affected me".
Calling people "autists" as a joke is either problematic and worth calling out or it isn't. You being personally affected doesn't change that. At least that is what I would argue is required from a consistent moral framework.
Don't think that says much about my morals, just that I like them to be consistent / not myopic.
Think about the thread we're posting in. This is basically about a company/industry that was like "these retail investors don't need protecting, they're adults and can make their own decisions, even if it means losing money", until those retails investors started costing them money with their adult decisions, at which point they change their mind and decide "actually they need protecting from themselves".
The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you did the same, just swap out financial shenanigans for name-calling.
>It was clearly taken over by folks intending to have it shut down because it did not look like that prior to this GME bet gaining media attention.
That's one theory. Another would be that the gaining media attention caused an influx of users to join a group that equates itself to 4chan, causing moderation issues.
This one is probably closer to my guess, it would be difficult to moderate half a million new users in a day with an existing mod base, and you can't really just hand out permissions to random memers saying "I'll help moderate" without risking that some nonzero amount of them will just cause havoc anyway.
Yes. The only thing I'd suggest is to call for volunteers from "sane" subreddits that seem to have a good moderation policy and reasonable moderators.
The problem there is that the above people are already likely quite busy, and don't want to take on an additional (unpaid) burden by trying to clean up a sub they don't really care about.
WSB is about the memes, I don't think it's at all similar to 4chan (especially not /b/) and I think it is dangerous for you to assassinate the character of the community in such a dismissive way.
I'm not personally associated (not a member on the boards) but I've seen a lot of discussions float my way over the years and if it became that way now it's unlikely to be from 4chan itself (or a community like it).
But your insinuation here gives credence to many that the internet is eating itself, when it's much more likely to be manipulation from those who stand to lose.
Their tagline is (or was at least) 'if 4chan found a bloomberg terminal'.
I say this as someone who frequented both communities at one time or another: they are very very very alike. I wouldn't be surprised if this who thing is a charade to take money from 'normies' as much a wall street.
Ive been watching the community for atleast 4 years now, and for the most part it's is just random people that use options to gamble (i.e. wild shots at trying to make money but they do have some knowledge). Either way, while terms like retard, autist, and gay are used frequently I've yet to see any racism or any xenophobia whatsoever in the community. And any insinuation of it is usually shut down fast. And While they use that mantra I think WSB is very unlike 4chan (although my exposure to 4chan is extremely limited) and its racism/hate speech.
I don't think "While mocking people with disabilities and homophobia is frequent, I have yet to see any racism or xenophobia" is the defense you think it is.
Yeah, I read my comment and thought about it, and I fully understand that those words are not acceptable but I feel like its not as severe and most of the time they are calling themselves gay and such, but I fully understand that it still is unacceptable.
The defense is "while there is mocking of disabilities and gay sexuality, there is not racism and xenophobia". Regardless, its in good fun. There is no intention of actually disparaging those groups. There are plenty of posts about donations to Autism research and other charities.
I don't think anyone is moving goal posts. The people who think those words aren't ok have never cared about intent or whether or not you've donated money to the cause.
> I don't think "While mocking people with disabilities and homophobia is frequent, I have yet to see any racism or xenophobia" is the defense you think it is.
I think that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the language they use means they're mocking people with disabilities or homophobia. Using words ironically just to be edgy is completely different from believing others to be inferior or an invasive entity to be defended against. That's very apparent when you talk to, say, an angsty teenager versus an actual ethnonationalist or even just your garden variety civic nationalist.
They might use the same words, but mean them in completely different ways, and actually be expressing very different things. I think that as it pertains to the internet, certain dialects of edgy, slang filled english are as close to a global lingua franca as can be considered possible. You can't paint all of these people with the same brush. Aside from speaking the same dialect of english, they use it to express very different thoughts, no less diverse or varied as those who speak other ones. This nuance will get missed if you overliteralize what they say and take it at face value.
This is how 4chan started as well - there's then a steady progression from the ironic mode, to ironic "racism", to ironic racism, to "ironic" racism, to racism.
However Discord would have known about this "bad" behaviour for a long time and it wasn't a coincidence that they finally decided to apply a ban hammer, so it's a very weak cover story. Also, racial slurs? You're the first I've heard of racist slurs - I had only heard of people calling themselves/the group retards and autists - meant in an endearing, self-deprecating humour kind of way. I've seen no instances of racism on /r/wallstreetbets - I really doubt on their Discord they'd be allowing racism though.
It's just so blatantly obvious. It reminds me that the final layer of competition is governance, and these "unicorns" funded by the VC-finance industrial complex are going to lose out in the end when eventually good actors come into play.
For the several years I've been following, I've never once seen the n word or anything close to racist memes.
They do make a lot of autism jokes (mostly pointed at themselves) and plenty of f bombs, but neither of which is generally seen as ban-hammer-levels of problematic (whether or not it is is up to you)
The theory is that Discord’s investors are putting pressure on them to shutdown the wild & crazy investment decisions they don’t like. It’s hard to say what is actually happening.
Discord has had significant investment from private equity funds including FirstMark Capital, Greenoaks Capital Partners, Index Ventures, IVP, Greylock Partners, Benchmark, Accel, General Catalyst, Ridge Ventures, Spark Capital, and Tencent Holdings. At least one of these firms has invested with Point72 Ventures, which recently helped Melvin Capital.
The connection is pretty conspiratorial. By that logic every company in the valley could be heavily influenced to shutdown products for different people if it as any connection to a VC (which is pretty much every company).
I think discord probably made some calculations on its own as opposed to pressure from Melvin/Point72. Though in this day and age it seems that the truth ends up being stranger than fiction.
> By that logic every company in the valley could be heavily influenced to shutdown products for different people if it as any connection to a VC (which is pretty much every company).
Exactly. These companies are losing literal billions. Actual wars in real life have been fought over less. Yet they couldn't possibly be exerting any influence over the companies they own. That would be illegal.
I think you've gotta take selection effects into account. The deep comments section of the Nth Robinhood/Gamestop post is going to be disproportionately full of people who are unhappy with Robinhood and willing to believe lots of nasty things about them.
Which then has a spiraling effect in that other disaffected people will read those comments and believe what they want to believe. Similar to the conspiracy theories in the election. However I do think there has been some super shady stuff done with robinhood that doesn't take that much to believe that there is a conspiracy/collusion is at play. It's hard to believe that they are altruistically de-risking their clients when they sell doge coin.
So your telling me that 0 of the partners in those SV firms above have the phone numbers of 0 these short selling hedge funds partners in their phones right now?
I'm on the fence whether someone influential actually called the CEO of Discord and asked to have it shut down. I'm 99% certain these people know each other. It's not a could the call be made its more of a was it made.
I never said this wasn't possible. though it's just as likely as anyone calling anyone.
practically, short selling hedge funds and silicon valley investors don't run in the same circles. yeah, they're socially connected but they have separate networks and cultures. conflating the two because they both involve investing isn't accurate
>though it's just as likely as anyone calling anyone.
That's a stretch. I think the point here is that some parties can save billions of dollars in losses, and makes them a little more likely hypothetically. Im all for dealing with the facts, but the facts are just looking at the '08 crisis a lot of Wall st funds have a track record of bending rules for profit. It's not out of this world to imagine 12 years later that the same culture exists
This is just a guess, but I imagine the hedge funds that own shares of these platforms are pulling some strings. That's a bit conspiratorial, but is it really that unbelievable?
At this point, nobody cares - Reddit found a repeatable distributed exploit that cannot be patched, and the financial system's self-preservation instinct kicked in.
I love that movie it shows them 'fixing the House' / messing them around in other ways. ratings houses refusing to downgrade MBS rates and the banks that wrote Burry's trade refused to execute until they also were on the right side.
Which is not remotely illegal, and most brokers do the same thing, except they used to charge people to buy and sell as well but now just make money from order flow. In fact market makers have always been involved in stock sales to ensure a fluid market; none of this is new. What is new is that buying and selling stocks costs you nothing, so there is no barrier to anyone to put money in or take it out. While everyone thinks it's a great thing, it's no different that allowing free communication in exchange for your personal data (ie Facebook) instead of requiring you to pay to communicate via mail or phone or plan things in person. Free always has a cost; in this case free involve scads of money changing hands with the folks at the end holding the bag, and anyone can pump the market to ensure they make a profit, and someone else takes a loss.
It's not a question of legality, it's one of incentives.
Similar to Google or Facebook, if I get the service for free, the service-providers' incentives may be aligned against me in favour of their paying customers.
It is likely that they have lend out the $GME shares to a hedge fund that went short, if this hedge fund goes bankrupt and the stock price continues to rise they will be in serious trouble.
Robinhood allows free trades. With all the new customers loging in and just buying a few stocks, they have to acquire lots of new shares. When this is all over, a lot of retail investors are going to be left holding the bag, and will likely not be continuing customers.
Better to educate instead of ban then. So long as people have the facts, let them make their own decisions. At this point a number of people are probably just in on this because they love the idea of sticking it to a hedge fund or two.
Only those that got in late and then chose to sell at a lower price than cost.
However, and here is the problem - when the price does come down (likely after the shorts capitulate) , it will literally be a stampede to finally get out. It is unknown how sell orders will be processed... if at all at that point. So the later you get in the more likely you are to be burned, in the disordely unwinding scenario.
Early adopters will be ok. Holders and latecomers will not.
My point is, why is Robinhood still selling options that have a 95% chance to expire worthless, if their actual motivation is to protect their investors from high-risk trades?
The idea behind these trades is that they will not in fact suffer any losses because they bought in after the naked shorts brought the stock down to a low valuation. If they keep the stock high enough, long enough, the naked shorts will have to buy back the stock at much higher prices than the price was when this short squeeze was started. That's why short squeezes are a thing in the first place. This is no different than what Carl Icahn did to herbalife and Bill Ackman.
When companies keep these people from implementing their strategy, they expose these individuals(their own customers) to potential huge losses.
That's not how this works. Of course the play is bad if you completely ignore that the key part of the play is that short sellers and call contract writers are contractually obligated to buy pretty much regardless of the price. Whether or not it pans out this way for most retailers is yet to be seen, but the mechanism is sound and the risk is in not having data available to you on what the outstanding short interest is.
It's not a loss until you sell, and a key date to sell (tomorrow, when tens of thousands of 1/29 calls expire) hasn't happened yet.
Once the short positions are covered, shouldn't we expect the price instantly fall to its original level, modulo retail bagholders still buying due to fog of war?
And... The price is in freefall in the last minutes of trading today.
Largely correct. The only thing I would add is that I wouldn't be surprised at all if it landed a fair bit above where it started, because there being short interest 140% of the float has a pretty chilling effect on people looking at investing. You would see that and either think the shorters are morons in an insanely risky position, or they know something you don't and are _absolutely certain_ that the company is going to implode. This time the former is true, the vast majority of the time, the latter is.
Fog of War is the important bit here. The big difference between this and a pump and dump is that the FOW here is retail investors not having great SI data. In theory, a retail investor could still make this work in a "safe" way (safe used very liberally); it would be a hell of a maneuver for everyone with a short position to somehow close their position in a single day before Joe Retailer is able to get any word on what the outstanding SI is. In a pump and dump, your FOW/missing information is when the party working to pump the price decides the gig is up, which is effectively impossible to know unless you are that party.
A lot of retail investors with four days of experience under their belt are going to lose their ass by trying to suss out their exit intuitively, but for those that did their homework, this could work. For many, it already has. The argument that this needs to stop because uneducated retail investors can get burned can be reduced to absurdity -- "retail traders can vaporize their life savings by going long on a company facing imminent bankruptcy, so they shouldn't be allowed to trade with even the most rudimentary of instruments."
Price being in freefall doesn't affect the huge number of people that were in well under that, the way this strategy is working, or that people somehow still think that going short on this is anything other than a lottery ticket play because of "muh fundamentals."
Could either be govt/NASDAQ forced something or a major investor/VC in Robinhood is putting the pressure because they have other investments or vested interests in the hedge funds getting hurt.
> Why do Robinhood, Reddit, Discord, etc feel like they have to respond to this?
Indeed. There's a lot of talk about Section 230 lately, and how "precious" it is to freedom of speech. That law protects them from culpability against hosting legally-dubious things like this market move -- and any malfeasant commenting about it -- but none of the big platforms are acting like it exists. They're just censoring anyway, because they are either embarrassed, or are getting their strings pulled. Either stand behind Section 230, or admit you're just censoring things for duplicitous reasons of politics, money, or the rabble.
Reddit and discord are afraid they'll be implicated in what is a classic pump and dump. Robinhood only exists because the SEC has chosen to look the other way concerning the pattern day trading rule which clearly is in jeopardy if big money starts complaining.
This is a short squeeze: the stock is shorted to the limit, and from the stock price, the shorters entered their positions "uncovered", so their risk is extremely high, and their losses are potentially infinite.
The WSB crowd and probably others noticed this, and bought the stock, knowing that it was going to become more valuable over time once the shorters had to close their positions.
They were right, and the shorters are loosing so much money that they are willing to buy back the stock at astronomical prices to limit their losses, which drives the price up even more.
The WSB crowd just need to hold until the stock is at the maximum price that the short sellers can pay, right before the short sellers default. That's the actual value of the stock right now.
If the stock climbs too much, and the short sellers default, the stock is worthless.
TBH, this is the short sellers own fault. They made the assumption that the market was "fair", and that they were going to buy back the shares for cheap when they needed them as a consequence.
It's a classic pump and dump because there's just no reason to believe that this is what's happening. There was a short squeeze at one point, but all of the funds known to hold large short positions had closed their positions by Wednesday morning; the value since then was most likely driven entirely by speculation.
In particular, I've seen a lot of speculators spreading the idea that margin calls will force everyone shorting Gamestop to buy stock at market price on Friday. This is wrong, and pretty unequivocally so, but I've had multiple friends come to me and explain that this is why they bought some.
This makes no sense - if they had closed their short positions of millions of shares and had the squeeze happen, the share price would have spiked far higher than it is now.
Why is that so? Trading volume was over 175 million each of Friday, Monday, and Tuesday. Do we have some way of knowing exactly what the price should be when they exit?
Robinhood would not put themselves in such a precarious position if they had already exited - also as for the price target of when they actually do start covering their shorts, they are still currently short more than the available amount of shares on the market - the current trading range of around 200-300 cannot be the squeeze.
You’re misunderstanding what a short squeeze means. There’s no singular “the squeeze” - no specific point in time where everyone who holds a short position has to simultaneously obtain the underlying stock. If everyone who wants out of their short position has gotten out, there’s no guarantee that any further squeeze will be forthcoming.
I don't think you understand - the assumption that they already got out doesn't hold because shorted shares/float data is publicly accessible[1]. Now I'm sure what happened today allowed them to cover some of their losses partially, but not even close to all of it.
By this logic the stock should be shorted even more than it currently is. Why did short sellers close their position if that is the case? Your story is not consistent at all.
> Robinhood only exists because the SEC has chosen to look the other way concerning the pattern day trading rule
This is simply not true at all.
I've had my trading on RH restricted specifically because of the PDT rule. As in, I was about to make a trade, and the site told me that the trade would cause a restriction because of pattern day trading.
This is a small part of the picture but RH lost a lot of money due to WSB advertising and exploiting the 'infinite money glitch' so it likely didn't take much convincing to act against WSB.
Though ironically it took them months to close the glitch which was their fault and a day to stop the action on WSB's picks.
> "It is very clear to anyone looking at the numbers that the whole marketplace is being manipulated here"
I don't get this.
I didn't know anything about short selling a few days ago and maybe now is a bad time to learn... but my understanding is that short selling is only legal because it disincentivizes bubbles caused by artificial overestimation of a company. Investors took it too far and short sold over 100% of the stocks in a company, ironically creating ideal conditions for a bubble. As soon as GameStop's stock turned upward, the rampant short selling resulted in a demand for more than 100% the supply of GameStop's stock, resulting in a meteoric rise in price.
But how is this market manipulation? The rise in stock price has nothing to do with an artificial overestimation of GameStop's value. It's just fundamental supply and demand. If anything, the short sellers are the ones who manipulated the market when they started shorting over 100% of the stock supply.
Like I said, I'm a complete noob when it comes to the stock market. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
I'm not an expert but it seems to me that this whole 100% thing is a total red herring. If I (A) have 50 shares in GME, I let you (B) borrow them and short sell them to person (C), person (C) now owns them, you (B) can borrow them from person (C) and short sell them to person (D). Suddenly you've short sold the same stock twice.The only issue for you is that you now need to buy back 100 stock to pay off what you've borrowed, which you could do buying the stock from person (D), giving it back to person (C), buying them frmo person (C) and giving it back to person (A).
The only issue comes if someone notices that you've done this, pushes the price up to the point where you have to exit your position because your broker won't let you hold this short position that you can't afford to pay for. At that point you must exit, which drives the price up even further because you're creating demand for the stock.
What's important to notice about this is that the second you're no longer short the stock, no one has any incentive to hold the stock. So it'll return to $20 and all those super smart boys on WSB who were holding out for $2000 have thousands of shares of a worthless retail stock that they probably bought on margin and are going to lose everything.
Yes. When the dust settles there are still 70M almost worthless original shares that will be held by someone.
But in the meantime, there are 70M short shares that need to be rebought from the 140M original+loaned shares. The idea is that forcing closing out the short position will allow you to sell some at sky high prices, hopefully enough to cover the loss from the rest of the shares that must be inevitably bagheld.
100% of float or 100% of outstanding are not super significant inflection points, just very large ratios.
Hi everyone, thank you for joining our Gamestop company all hands, I'd like to introduce our new CEO and majority shareholder, soon-to-be bankrupt guy from reddit.
Not necessarily. Those shorts exist for a reason: someone thought that gamestop was a bad company. If they are right then the short position won't need to be bought back because at some point the bankruptcy court will decide that the share holders get nothing. At this point all trades on the stock are legally halted and so the IOUs are legally meaningless - anyone who owned stock gets nothing.
Of course the above depends on the short holders to: be right; have the capital to not have to cover their shorts; and be willing to hold on for the ride. I'm not making bets on any of the above.
No. You aren't misunderstanding anything. That's exactly what happened.
The "problem" here, is that the little guys noticed. Michael Burry and some unknown YouTuber saw this over a year ago and started buying GameStop, and making a case for people to buy GameStop.
This is very easy to understand. The wrong people are losing money. And that can't be allowed. That's all you need to know for this to make sense.
People conspiring to push prices in one direction is a clear cut market manipulation and I believe a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.
It's fine to have lots of people buying something, but if they discuss how they can coordinate to hurt short sellers or something like that, particularly on a public forum, despite not being a lawyer I am fairly confident this is prosecutable.
Market trading regulations are full of fine lines where the wrong side can land you in jail. For instance the difference between front-running and pre-hedging / anticipating market liquidity is basically the intent and the information the trader has. The actions are indistinguishable.
Apparently Citadel is in bed with Schwab/Ameritrade, too, who also halted trading:
"The Verge meanwhile noted one hedge fund suffering amid the GameStop surge was Melvin Capital Management, which another hedge fund, Citadel, has since bailed out. Citadel's founder is Ken Griffin, who also founded Citadel Securities, a big investor in Robinhood that also works with TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab."
I suspect they sell them the trading data just like Robinhood does, to help them front-running the retail traders.
>But the crazy part is that they only halted one side of the trade... the buy orders. That is manipulation.
Exactly, I mean you could make the argument to stop selling:
"The current price is being manipulated and is too high so we stopped our customers from selling if they mistime the market. We will resume selling when prices return to normal."
Edit to add from /wsb:"If you try to sell you will get fucked because who are you going to sell it to if nobody can buy it?"
I hope there is some meaningful action by the SEC. It would be interesting to have all the trades reversed to the point when buying was stopped.
You can make a good argument that WSB are engaged in market manipulation. RobinHood don't want to be the broker for that for a whole myriad of reasons.
I would love to see a good argument there, because while that argument is easy to accept at face value, when I dig deeper at the concept of what market manipulation is, I fail to find behavior that the majority of WSB is engaging in that fits that criteria.
Where are the fraudulent statements causing price pumps? None of the prominent due diligence the community has provided that started this run has been found to be untrue. Their thesis still stands: GME was undervalued and shorts were vulnerable to a squeeze.
I've no idea if it meets the legal definition of price manipulation (we'd have to review the finra records which aren't public). And even then, it might not be the SEC etcs opinion that they want this fight.
That said, WSB have been really clear that they're cornering the market to drive up the price. The fact they've done it by coordinating 1001 little retail accounts makes no difference. Short squeezes are always pretty dodgy. This one is openly a conspiracy to move a market.
Shorters got themselves in a dumb position. It seems to me someone is rigging the market to get them out of it. But that doesn't change the core action here: let's conspire to corner the market and force an artificially high price.
> But that doesn't change the core action here: let's conspire to corner the market and force an artificially high price.
First, I recommend you look up the meaning of conspiracy in the dictionary: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
Tell me, where was the secret plan? Everything on WSB happened in the open, in plain view of millions of people.
Second, the market is not even what's cornered here. It's the hedge fund owners who shorted gamestop (fully understanding the risks this entailed), who are cornered. They are the ones who are driving the price up as they try to cover their short positions.
>Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime.
One of the dodgiest things in English Common law is the low low bar for conspiracy (see also Joint Venture).
I think we actually agree about the cornering part don't we? I say the shares are cornered, you say the hedge funds but it amounts to the same thing. I definitely agree the hedge funds are looking fucked and deservedly so.
> I think we actually agree about the cornering part don't we? I say the shares are cornered, you say the hedge funds but it amounts to the same thing. I definitely agree the hedge funds are looking fucked and deservedly so.
I think we agree on this.
> an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.
Are you saying, though, that publishing advice or suggestions on a forum to buy a certain stock is a crime, or is illegal? That kind of stuff happens all the time in newspapers and television shows. Wall Street insiders have coordinated buying and selling for generations.
So did giving the advice become a crime by virtue of the fact that so many people decided to act on it?
I would say Yes AND then some to the question about the legality of advice.
Offering financial advice is a regulated activity. You should have a license and qualifications and insurance and whole crap of other stuff. You may need to declare conflicts of interest.
Advising others to buy a share you hold in the hope the price will go up (or to sell something you're short etc) is a crime. This is why you'll see or hear disclaimers from all sorts of outlets either stating the comments are not advice or declaring holdings etc. The A16Z podcast is a good source of this.
So advising people is not in any way a safe, legal activity for random commenter. "it was advice" isn't a defense here unless you're registered, qualified, insured and declared your holdings and intent to trade.
I'm not saying people don't do it anyway, or that the sec actively hunts ever reddit account that says "I like tesla". They don't. But the SEC gets to choose what it pursues so if it wants to make an example of this or to quash WSB influence or to help its friends in hedge funds, who knows?
Such is the murky nature of financial regulation.
That was the "yes" part. I would add this as "and then some":
Advise or comentory is saying "we should buy GME because its a good company, well run, profitable, undervalued, due for a change in fortune" etc. That's just an opinion or a statement of certain facts.
Saying "if we all buy it, we can break the market and force the price up" goes beyond advise. It is explicitly intended to change the price. In this case, the commenter isn't discussing whether the company is good or not. The company the shares are in doesn't matter. Instead, they're using their size to bully others and drive the price in the direction they choose rather than on reflecting the companies prospects.
That's what WSB (or rather some of its users) explicitly said they were doing. That's what they then congratulated each other on doing. We even sort of agree on this point: they cornered it. It didn't happen by accident, people didn't say "GME is a great buy". They were explicit from day 1: "GME doesn't matter, but we can form a group and coordinate to change its price and make a profit".
Now again, maybe the SEC don't care. Maybe they're too lazy to pursue it or they also think hedge funds do it (much more covertly) so fair is fair. Maybe they don't want the political blowback that comes with this. I don't really care to be honest with you, good luck to the little guy.
But it seems pretty easy to me to make the case at least that this is market manipulation, that it succeeded, that it was intentional etc
When 1 big hedge fund does this, or a few work together, it's just as bad. But they're at least quite about it. They'll discuss it offline in unrecorded meetings. They do it slowly. They're careful not to do it too often. WSB have posted about it and blasting the market. That makes it harder to ignore.
The core concept here is that you should buy or sell stock because you believe the company will succeed or fail going forwards. Doing it to drive the price is an abuse of size. It doesn't matter really who you are, how many you are, or whether someone else is shorting the stock etc.
It also doesn't matter if others are manipulating the price, you don't get to "manipute it back".
Again, I think it's hilarious they did this. I admire it in a dumb way. I'm not calling for prosecutions. I think it's very concerning that execution only brokers took it upon themselves to step in (I'd like an inquiry there).
Im just saying, they did conspire and they did manipulate the stock price. <shrugs>
Thanks for reading this and the other comment. I hope I haven't ranted too much. It's been a pleasure reading your comments!
When markets move rapidly, and in GME’s case we are T-1 from opex, brokerages cannot manage risks effectively. They could actually be exposed quite a bit. With something like GME (probably an 8 sigma event) it could actually put Robinhood out of business.
It seems to me it's because "market makers" are a thing. Market making activities create billions in profits. But we are seeing the flaw in the market making algorithms.
Do we need market makers to let us always take a position in every single option when no real market for that option exists? I would argue no. It's completely artificial and they profit from it. If companies want to be market makers and profit from every single transaction, they need to be prepared to take a loss when the math doesn't swing their way.
MM is different from RH. RH would actually need to get collateral (or raise money) to allow its customers to trade GME at this volatility. I really think the anger should be directed at Wall Street and the Fed for creating a frothy investment environment and not doing anything about it. RH OTOH is trying to be a disruptive player.
I understand that RH is not a MM. So then why does RH have to manage its risk from the holdings of it's own customers?
I am not a finance professional but I thought RH is just like a custodian and facilitator of trades. It's not on the other side of any of these trades. It never holds any positions. Why does it have to manage its risk and why does a GME event create extra risk for RH?
I thought this kind of risk is only for the MM's like Citadel.
The way to make money in a bubble like this is to sell right before the pop.
At some point the word will go out that it’s over—“we won”—and everyone will rush to sell their GME and take profits.
It’s not possible for all those people to succeed. Broker apps like Robinhood will be absolutely overwhelmed with sell orders, many of which will run into technical problems and/or no counter parties. A lot of people are going to be pissed off and blame the brokers.
People buying in late will have the most to lose and maybe the least understanding of what is going on. I mean, this story was a “breaking news” red banner on WashingtonPost.com yesterday. Not everyone buying GME today understands the social movement /r/wsb angle.
Ultimately brokers are worried about getting sued by people or companies who lose a lot of money in ways that will look preventable in hindsight.
Edit to add: the 2008 financial crisis was caused by financial firms selling a lot of crazy mortgages to people who could not afford them unless housing prices went up forever. When the crisis hit, the firms got the blame, not their customers. Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time.
Seeing a comment like this on HN shows the risk here. If people here don’t understand the difficulty in scaling to meet huge spikes in demand, how are ordinary retail investors supposed to understand it?
It’s one thing to handle “a trade.” It’s another thing to handle everyone trying to trade at exactly the same second. We already saw broker apps have issues this week just on handling the buy volume. The sell volume will be far higher.
And I mentioned counterparties too. Even if the technology works, you can’t sell if everyone else is selling too.
Didn't Parlor just get shutdown because they did not moderate their user base comments fast enough?
If we hold a social media company liable for not being able to scale fast enough shouldn't a company offering financial services be held to at least that level of standard?
> Broker apps like Robinhood will be absolutely overwhelmed with sell orders
Shouldn't be possible. Most of the messages to the orderbook, by orders of magnitude, would be market makers doing add/cancel, which isn't something that comes from RH anyways.
How often is one particular user going to send in an order? 10 times a day if they're particularly busy? Doesn't touch the sides. The internet facing gateways can be scaled up easily if that's even needed, they aren't latency sensitive. The inside towards the exchange can be made extremely fast.
I'm on schwab. I had a hard time executing my sell. Luckily got it around $450 haha. But only 1 share for fun. I think I had to try like 8 times for it to go through. I also had a hard ish time canceling pre-market limit orders.
Agree. My cynical mind like to think that there are a lot more people there who just want to make a quick buck and maybe get rich quick. Those people, who most likely bought GME early on, are hyping up the "hold strong on GME" motto and they will silently leave the fools to hold the burden. Whether it's sticking it to the Wall Street or not (actually, it's only affecting maybe a handful of hedge funds on Wall Streets; the big guys on Wall Streets are probably making a lot of money from this "movement"), A LOT of average Joe's will lose money here as well.
> When the crisis hit, the firms got the blame, not their customers. Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time.
That is a pretty gross oversimplification and completely dismisses the variety of "companies" that had a hand.
Subprime lending was just the foundation, but it took investors to investors to buy those securities, and ratings agencies to assign favorable risk ratings to those securities.
> caused by financial firms selling a lot of crazy mortgages to people who could not afford them unless housing prices went up forever. When the crisis hit, the firms got the blame, not their customers.
This is not totally correct.
2008 was caused by banks giving out extremely risky mortgages (the banks knew they were risky mortgages) and then packaging them up into giant bundles and magically calling them AAA stable real estate investments and selling them forward to other banks/pensions/401ks.
Banks are responsible for assessing the risk on a mortgage, not the customer.
>Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time.
What a dismissive, awful, terrible way to phrase this.
Having parents that were nearly the victims of one of those upside down mortgages, it's not that simple. They didn't ask for a 400k mortgage. They asked for a home they could afford. When the bank, that they have trusted their entire life, says, 'you can afford this much per month', they had no reason to question that.
They're unsophisticated people, who trusted the system not to fuck them. And that's precisely what it tried to do.
While I get that people need to take control of their own money, when the people responsible for looking after your money, the actual, literal bank tells you you're good, why wouldn't you believe them?
I understand you. Many of the people seeing news stories or social media posts today about buying GameStop are also unsophisticated. Brokers may be thinking it is in their self-interest to not just execute every buy order in an obviously inflated stock.
If you agree that a bank should engage in paternalism and tell people what they can and cannot afford then why shouldn't Robinhood also engage in paternalism and tell people what stock they can or cannot buy?
> when the people responsible for looking after your money, the actual, literal bank
The bank doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to mortgage customers.
If someone wants someone responsible for looking after money and large purchases, they need a fiduciary financial advisor, not their bank.
The fact that people think the bank is supposed to look after money is part of the problem. The bank is just a vault. Not only are they not responsible for helping someone pick a mortgage and house, they aren’t even competent to do so.
I can’t imagine some retail bank even employing people who could competently assess individual debt/income ratios.
The training is that individuals should have financial literacy enough to know what banks do and don’t do well. And to recognize cross-marketing.
I knew tons of people who made dumb decisions in the 00s and bought way too much house. The bank letting them was part of the problem. But people being stupid was a big part too. I knew families making $50k/year buying $400k houses and refinancing every six months for cash out to pay the mortgage. The bank shouldn’t have done that. But people were really stupid to do this once much less multiple times.
Loughla is right, it was reasonable for customers to trust their banks on scoping a mortgage. Not because of some technical fiduciary status, but because banks had a history of being conservative with mortgage underwriting, and because it would seem to be in the banks' best interest to be conservative with mortgage underwriting.
But some banks thought they could lower their underwriting standards and get away with it because they could shift the risk to larger financial entities by selling the mortgages. And a lot of non-banks got in on the mortgage underwriting game for the same reason.
And bank customers liked it. Who doesn't like to be told that you're in better financial shape than you thought? That should be good news.
My point above was not to defend what banks did, but to point out that, even though banks were in the legal right to lower their underwriting standards, it did not work out well for them or their customers (or anyone else, really). And a lot of the downside came later, in the form of bad reputations, burdensome regulations, etc.
Most buyers didn’t get mortgages from their retail bank, they got them through mortgage brokers.
Maybe there were lots of hapless old people who were misled by some bank they mistakenly trusted for years.
I don’t think so, the many examples I personally knew from that period were getting loans from specialized banks that set up mortgage shops, like Washington Mutual.
The book (and movie) The Big Short digs into this how regular people were overextending.
To clarify, the banks were bad actors by offering and participating. But reasonable people were avoiding the situation until the whole system tipped over. Someone borrowing at 40% debt to income or higher should never have done that, even if they trusted their local banker who was saying it was fine. Finance requires personal responsibility and people need education to help make these decisions (and they shouldn’t get this help from someone with a vested adversarial financial interest).
> I can’t imagine some retail bank even employing people who could competently assess individual debt/income ratios.
They would have terrible sales numbers and get fired in the first month. Wells Fargo's training was that the more financial instruments a customer had with the bank the better.
>When the crisis hit, the firms got the blame, not their customers. Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time.
Maybe it wasn't intended, but this comes across as particularly harsh victim-blaming.
Yes, the firms got some blame (and a bailout), the customers lost their homes.
Edit: I now see the retraction/clarification you just posted to another commenter. Cheers.
>People buying in late will have the most to lose and maybe the least understanding of what is going on. I mean, this story was a “breaking news” red banner on WashingtonPost.com yesterday. Not everyone buying GME today understands the social movement /r/wsb angle.
Actually that is impossible. This is a short squeeze. If you forget to sell your share then the short sellers are fucked because they still have to buy yours.
1. SEC is protecting the little guy and being paternalistic
2. Institutional collusion
However, 1. could be likely because this GME frenzy is reducing confidence in the overall market. S&P500 lost 100 pts this week. By stifling buys, they
Obviously I'm speculating but one of the largest investors in Robinhood's last round was a hedge fund.
As others have pointed out, Citadel's market making arm is their largest source of revenue + Citadel's hedge fund recently invested a large amount in Melvin Capital to help shore up Melvin's capital base after their loss.
Unfortunately unless Robinhood insiders leak or post their rationale behind this decision, we'll never really know what happened behind closed doors.
To some degree, they have a legal responsibility due to the "suitability standard" (link below) to do this. While they aren't recommending GME and the others per se, they certainly profit from the order flow as well as new account sign-ups. People may be making money now, but those who lose their shirts -- especially if the RH platform crashes when they try to exit a position -- are going to be angry. Preventing purchases in the first place is a way to keep those people from litigating, and to demonstrate to regulators that RH didn't attempt to profit from a mad dash toward unsuitable investments.
Their platform is probably inundated with open orders on these few names, as the price is all over the place. They had outages back in March 2020 and presumably there's a risk of the same if everyone tries to close their positions at the same time (eg, if u/deepf**ingvalue announces that he has exited).
A charitable guess is that Robinhood is trying to protect their users from buying at the height of this mania.
There are people literally investing their rent money into GME, and it's almost inevitable that the price will come down at some point, the only question is when and how far.
The trade screen could just display a warning that the stocks are in question are experiencing high volatility, and require the user to click something to indicate that they understand the risks.
Robinhood is a margin-lending options-trading broker. If a customer falls down on a trade, it is ultimately liable. If a retail customer loses money and makes a FINRA complaint that Robinhood induced them to buy through its gameified interface, it is liable. Risk and compliance likely made this call.
Also, Robinhood makes its revenue from market makers. They are the customers. Clients are not. So when trading these equities gets unprofitable, they will pull the plug. (Though anecdotally, everyone I know on the sell side in equities and equity derivatives is making a killing on this.)
What I can guarantee is nobody shorting GameStop got Robinhood to pull the plug.
This is most likely the answer. They are taking on a lot of risk allowing this type of trading behavior. They likely don't have suitable risk infrastructure developed to feel like they have a handle on it, so they shut it down.
Even when they're not buying on margin GME is in a short term bubble that will soon pop and leave millions of their users worse off than before. There probably was some internal logic of "protecting" folks from themselves whether we agree with that or not.
> most people assuming the stock market would rebound
No, people / pundits / the media were widely proclaiming that the healthcare system would be overrun and the next great economic depression was upon us. Most people assumed the stock market would continue to fall.
Buy high, sell never. Everyone who bought the stock has already written it off as a complete loss. Everyone is banking on being worse off than before. They still buy it for the entertainment value and Robinhood denied them that.
The risk to Robinhood is GME crashing by more than the amount of the margin. A large brokerage that has been through crashes before has systems in place, and can spread the remaining risk around. If a large portion of your customers are invested in a handful of stocks, their risk becomes your risk. Also, other customers of Robinhood who have cash that is in an uninsured account are also at risk even if they are not invested in GME.
There was some speculation that they didn't have that capability. Brokerage firms should have the ability to restrict margin trading in particular stocks, but what if Robinhood couldn't, at least not on short notice?
There could is also the concern about new accounts trading in GME with funds that might be suspect. It's a risk you don't want to take if you don't know your customers and the bubble is ready to burst at any moment.
aggregate customer exposure means that massive simultaneous losses by retail traders following the herd can mean losses for RH, which they want to prevent.
I don't think that is correct. They stopped options trading in it not 100% cash backed stock buying or 300% cash backed shorting. I think their position is fairly reasonable and as an account holder there I don't want people going crazy on leverage on this amount of volatility.
That's what they advertise via Twit. But if you try to buy even 1 stock of GME on non margin account (our own money only) it doesn't allow you to do that. I have a screenshot for that if you want. And customer support line is overloaded as expected.
ok that is unfortunate I didn't go all the way through with trying to actually buy. I'm a long time customer and they were definitely better before they went public
RH makes money by selling data to investment firms, not off individual trades/fees.
If their customers - the firms that pay them, not app users - see the RH platform as a threat to their business they could pull the plug[0]. Or if this prompts regulators to examine RH and similar products.
The risk isn't in the outcomes of options/trades; its risk to their business model.
[0] RH's customer are actually market makers, who by and large will be profiting heavily off of this.
> If their customers - the firms that pay them, not app users - see the RH platform as a threat to their business
This point has been made repeatedly elsewhere but it bears repeating. Market makers are getting rich off this trading. Robinhood's customers are not hurting from this.
Still, as far as risk to RH is concerned - if this kicks off a change via their customers, regulators, or legal action the change is probably not in their favor.
> if it's your money, I don't see how it's risky for RH.
FINRA arbitration, and the FINRA complaint process, is highly sympathetic to retail clients. When these clients lose money on GME et al, there will almost certainly be a class-action lawsuit for some fraction of their collective losses. And Robinhood's lawyers will almost certainly recommend they settle. That is the risk, beyond margin lending and options settlement, they are seeking to mitigate.
(Also, when that money is lost, there is a decent chance Robinhood will be fined by half the regulators on this planet for inducing people to overtrade through its gameified interface or something like that.)
One issue is a lot of retail people bought GME options. If those expire in the money, these people will be on the hook to buy 100s of shares of GME and likely don't have the cash on hand to purchase the shares (which leave RH holding the bag).
On one hand, you could say RH shouldn't let people buy options if RH doesn't believe those people can pay up when the option expires. On the other hand, you have people buying options who maybe don't understand that you need cash to buy the shares if the option expires in the money.
That's whay Schwabb did and what any serious broker would do if there's volatility. If you have cash you should always be allowed to play if you are not doing anything illegal. If it's dangerous, it's your cash not theirs.
If it was the answer, then RH could have instead only forbidden margin trades and restricted to cash.
Additionally, other retail brokers selling to Citadel Capital have done the exact same (Schwab comes to mind, but not only).
Other brokers however (fidelity), have not. If the short squeeze is to happen tomorrow, this seems an unlikely coincidence that those retail brokers affiliated with Citadel Capital tool positions that would ultimately deflate the stock.
I don't see how GP can assure that no short sellers is behind those moves.
Hedgefunds are real Robinhood customers buying their order flow. They go belly up Robinhood looses their actual source of income plus Robinhood lent them a ton of stock to short so they are on the hook too.
> Hedgefunds are real Robinhood customers buying their order flow
Market makers buy order flow. Hedge funds don't. The only major hedge fund affiliated with a market maker is Citadel.
Melvin and Citron placing shorting GME is an anomaly in the hedge fund world. Most institutional short views are expressed through options and structured products. (Market makers convert those options into shorts, the same way they convert calls into stock purchases.)
Market makers are making tonnes of money on this. It's the low-information non-directional trading their models are built for. (Source: former options market maker. My former colleagues are making annual targets in a week.)
Some hedge funds are getting screwed. But that is mostly over. Few funds' risk tolerances let them extend a 10x loss on an outright short. With respect to their puts, their maximum loss is the premium. That's generally baked into the risk model ex ante.
The only sophisticated parties holding the bag are brokers. Margin loans at risk. Uncovered options sales at risk. Most significantly, when the scheme inevitably crashes, almost-inevitable class-action lawsuits from clients claiming to have been misled by their interfaces.
>Market makers are making tonnes of money on this. It's the low-information non-directional trading their models are built for. (Source: former options market maker. My former colleagues are making annual targets in a week.)
Aren't these market makers sitting on a ton of stock to cover call positions?
They may have picked up a lot of pennies these last two weeks, but the bulldozer is getting bigger and faster. This is a truly unprecedented situation and I doubt they have confidence that their models can handle it.
Market makers aggregate their risk exposure across all of their holdings and put limits on how large those exposures get.
> Aren't these market makers sitting on a ton of stock to cover call positions?
The whole purpose of delta hedging is to make them immune to the first-order effects of market moves. The first-order derivative of the value of everything they hold with respect to price moves in any one stock is constantly kept near zero.
In the old days, many options traders would put off hedging their books until near the closing bell. Smart equities traders would watch the options market to see which way the traders would be rushing to hedge in the cash equities market. These days, there are systems that automatically hedge out the positions throughout the day.
> The only major hedge fund affiliated with a market maker is Citadel.
How many shares of Melvin Capital were bought by Citadel when they injected $2.75B? Is there a way to know how exposed they are?
Isn't there a conflict of interest in them floating a hedge fund losing money due to flow orders they are buying (or, potentially, not buying anymore)?
You could also imagine that they have concern about the volume causing issues on their servers. A literal thundering herd might mean owners of GME can't sell during the collapse which would put robinhood in a bad situation
I strongly dislike nits like this. I don't think this clarifies what I was saying or provides any value. I also don't find it humorous.
While writing, I was thinking of the thundering herd problem and imagined that individual users is more literal (than many processes), more like the thing for which the problem was named.
If I'm not not mistaken, I think you can also refer to a group of humans literally as a herd. But I very rarely think such prescriptivism (saying one should not use terms inappropriately) provides value, especially on a word that is so far past being used correctly with any consistency.
> What I can guarantee is nobody shorting GameStop got Robinhood to pull the plug.
Not sure how you could possibly gaurantee that. Also given that Robinhood edit got a huge chunk of cash from a shorter makes that pretty weird to "guarantee"[1]
Yes, Robinhood disclosed that Citadel's MM desk accounted for the largest portion of their payment for order flow income in their rule 606 disclosures. But still a bad take because Citadel stands to make much more money on further trading, and Citadel's hedge fund likely has the capital to outlast retail.
Let me be clear: if I were sales at Robinhood, Citadel MM is a huge client.
But Citadel MM is more likely to pull the plug on making markets in a name for risk reasons than to benefit a hedge fund position. To say nothing of the fact that Citadel got to bail out Melvin Capital, which is traditionally a profitable trade.
> If a customer falls down on a trade, it is ultimately liable.... Robinhood induced them to buy through its gameified interface
Why would robinhood be any more liable than other online traders like Fidelity or etrade?
> What I can guarantee is nobody shorting GameStop got Robinhood to pull the plug.
How can you guarantee that? Robinhood likely routes most of it's trades through citadel, which has informed partners it will not be fulfilling GME or AMC or BB trades.
And it turns out Citadel is also a hedge fund that has massive short positions on GME.
They would have different risk profiles depending on what their clients are actually doing. RH probably has much greater net exposure than Fidelity since they have a greater share of meme investors in their customer base. Fidelity definitely has a less gameified interface as well.
Corporate risk controls are also not a hard science, different risk teams can and do come to different conclusions on the same issue.
> Why would robinhood be any more liable than other online traders like Fidelity or etrade?
Every brokerage house ultimately vouches for their clients.
Robinhood has extra exposure because clients could claim its interface induced them to overtrade.
> Robinhood likely routes most of it's trades through citadel
Do we have a source for this?
Also, Citadel just made money bailing out Melvin Capital. The short squeeze let them buy assets at dimes on the dollar. Assets which do not include GameStop shorts.
> which has informed partners it will not be fulfilling GME or AMC or BB trades
Former market maker. When trading got crazy we'd take profits. When it got inexplicable, we'd pull the plug. If we didn't, risk would. In this case, there is the additional factor of political risk--you don't want to be making millions of dollars off GameStop at its peak when that's going to cost you tens of millions of legal fees in front of Congress.
A simple explanation for Robinhood's behavior might be that their customers, the market makers, backed away from paying for this order flow.
All this said, I'd be highly pissed if my broker did this to me. But Robinhood customers have known since the beginning they weren't the customer.
If you buy a share of GME from Citadel Securities, that may typically result in an immediate unhedged short position at Citadel, if they weren't already holding it.
Normally, a market maker might then close it by buying a share from someone trying to sell. But in a massively one-way market like GME, it's quite likely that they build up a large enough unhedged massive short position that they say "no, we're not taking on any more risk" and communicate that to Robin Hood.
They immediately hedge it. If the market for GME is "one-way" (it's not, people are shorting), they might also hedge the sale by buying more exotic financial instruments and correlates of the GME price.
> they say "no, we're not taking on any more risk" and communicate that to Robin Hood.
Maybe, although they would probably do that when their ability to hedge started breaking down, not when they'd already acquired massive short positions.
More likely, to me, is that they would just increase the bid-ask price spread continuously as their ability to hedge degrades.
This assumes continuous liquidity. Dangerous assumption to make in choppy markets.
It is not uncommon for markets to gap up or down discontinuously. You look at the market and see bid 899 at 901, buy some shares for 898, offer them at 890 and find the market is now 125 at 901.
So as a platform Robinhood wants to make money from trading options, but it will shut down the platform when it sees too much risk for itself? If so, would this damage the trust to Robinhood?
b) it's hard to imagine that with half of RH currently holding GME they're not going to come out of this having gained more in users than they lose over trust issues
> Robinhood is a margin-lending options-trading broker. If a customer falls down on a trade, it is ultimately liable. If a retail customer loses money and makes a FINRA complaint that Robinhood induced them to buy through its gameified interface, it is liable. Risk and compliance likely made this call.
This is a very tenuous argument. By law, options customers in the US have to receive an information packet and accept an Options Agreement, wherein it's clear that they could lose 100% of their premium outlay (or more). Options trading is approved based on levels; not every account can buy options, and not every options account can sell naked options.
If we are assuming good faith from RH, maybe they are trying to prevent margin-call suicides. But I don't assume good faith from RH.
Not to mention that they turned off all opening trades -- not just large trades, margin trades, or options trades.
Robinhood didn't pull the plug. Tastyworks did the same and they said they were more or less forced by Apex Clearing. Here is CEO of interactive brokers also admitting to the reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RH4XKP55fM
I'm just guessing here, but another thought is that since Robinhood apparently want to IPO in the near-mid term future, they would rather take the “bad press” now, than take it in a month when it’s “Gambling allowed on Robinhood ruins lives as Robinhood makes record profit”
One possible legitimate reason is the risk to Robinhood themselves. They allow margin trading and I think anybody would agree that buying GME at these crazy prices on margin is incredibly risky. If the traders can't pay, Robinhood or their bank/insurers are on the hook. Also even though the narrative here is Robinhood traders vs hedge funds, surely there are also a lot of shorts on Robinhood too, so there's more margin risk from those too.
However why not just disable margin trading on these stocks instead of shutting them off altogether? I don't really know enough to say. Maybe there are additional risks somewhere unrelated to margins? Or maybe the upstream market makers are forcing their hand. Or maybe it's some combination of reasons, including pressure from people who are on the losing sides of these bets.
> Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)
As others have often pointed out, Robinhood is in some ways analagous to social media companies. Their end users are not their customers, because it's a free service. The customers are the businesses on the other end, in Robinhood's case the market makers who are paying for the right to front-run trades. If this is no longer profitable for them due to crazy volatility, they can apparently stop allowing trades at any time.
I agree, with how much regulation is there is in every other aspect of the markets, I am surprised there is not more explicit process around just shutting off trades they don't like.
Well I think we're in such uncharted territory here that it would be difficult to trust any risk model, so just increasing the margin may be hard to get right.
> The customers are the businesses on the other end, in Robinhood's case the market makers who are paying for the right to front-run trades.
Front-running is super illegal. You're referring to payment for order flow (PFOF), in which a sell-side party like Citadel pays Robinhood for the right to route your order to the exchange. But there's a catch: Citadel is allowed to take the other side of your trade without routing it to an exchange, but it legally has to match the exchange price or cut you a discount. If Citadel can't do either, your order MUST be routed to an exchange.
PFOF makes up a somewhat negligible source of revenue for no-fee/discount brokerages. The bulk of revenue comes from a much more mundane source: interest rate spreads. Earn X% interest on customer cash deposits while providing customers less than X% interest on their deposits.
If your order isn't making its way to an exchange, PFOF isn't your problem, and you shouldn't be day trading. Your real problem is that the professionals think you over-bid/under-asked to such an extent that they're willing to cut you a deal just to take the other side of your trade. Unless you're a professional options trader, betting against professional market makers will cost you a lot more money than the imaginary transaction costs would have.
>Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)?
Robinhood operates a lot like Facebook. The "Gold" subscriptions and margin interest are tiny portions of their actual revenue. We are not their customers, we are the product. They offer free trades in exchange for selling order flow data to hedge funds, which in turns allows them to manipulate the markets. Of course they would protect their actual customers.
How is this not making people cynical, even for a person like me who does not own any share of GME? And isn't cynicism one of the greatest dangers to a system, for people stop trusting the system no matter what?
No because the price will normalize in the long run which is the only solid investment strategy. This valuation was created by out of thin air and will disappear into just that. If anything it shows that the market is rife with opportunity where people are overvaluing/undervaluing something
"The Robin Hood effect is an economic occurrence where income is redistributed so that economic inequality is reduced. The effect is named after Robin Hood, said to have stolen from the rich to give to the poor."
So I think in Robinhood's POV, hedge funds are the poor.
Robinhood’s actual customer is Citadel. Citadel was funding the short sells, investing directly into Melvin Capital, for example.
Robinhood did not act against its customers. Its users are their product, which it sells to Citadel. As you see now, this is way more than an edgy quip: when its free you are the product.
I just want to know how do you know for sure what those guys have been doing. Have they exposed all their trades? Are you saying that they were so stupid to not have hedged it?!
This is a hedge fund's game as it is for WSB.
It is the regular traders that have shorted via option that are losing money just the same. They are the most likely bag holders because they they don't hedge.
I know there's a lot of conspiracy around wall st screwing over the little guy here, I suspect the truth is more mundane. When the music stops a LOT of people will be left holding the bag and will lose a great deal of money. There are people putting their parents life savings into GME at $300/share. It's insane, and nothing but pure gambling at this point. I suspect regulators are extremely concerned at the risk people are exposing themselves to.
While you're right that eventually the music will stop, this thread is about direct intervention. There isn't a way I see that the intervention protects retail at all. By its nature it ensured a full crash and retail didn't see it coming.
A full crash is ensured by the fact that the stock is massively, massively overvalued. If they are taking steps to prevent it from becoming even more overvalued, the upshot should be less money getting lost overall.
Possibly, you are only part of the crash if you have to buy at the top which, from my understanding, would be the short sellers as it is driven to a 1 time spike. There would be bag holders from not having limits set correctly and all but that's the risky play.
Doing this way ensures that retail loses, 100%. Only a retail app was blocked.
It is the asymmetry, I can't see a valid reason for unilateral action from RH here.
I don't see this ending well for (some of) the Robinhood crowd. Wall Street has deeper pockets. Robinhood manages $20B in total. A small-ish hedge fund has like, a few billion dollars AUM. There are many such hedge funds, and a couple dozens much larger ones.
A couple funds with large short positions have popped, but short interest hasn't budged; they were just quietly replaced by other funds. At this point probably every hedge fund who trade equities is short GME. If your position is not too large and you have enough cash you can just keep meeting the margin calls and collect your free money when the bubble bursts.
(And stop loss orders don't save you if the crash happens fast enough.)
> At this point probably every hedge fund who trade equities is short GME.
I agree. Anybody who doesn't think that the algorithms have locked onto GME is stupid or hopelessly naive.
You're not punishing Wall Street, they've already priced you in and are waiting to take all your money.
Suckers.
"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider."
You misunderstand who their customers are. Who you're calling customers are users. Their customers, the ones who pay them, are the dark pools and other trade routers, or whatever they are called, who pay RH for routing trades thorough them.
Robinhood doesn't actually execute any trades. They sell user's trade orders to Citadel, a trade executor. Citadel then buys the shares on the market, and sells them to Robinhood for a slight markup. It's how Robinhood offers trades for $0 fees. You pay pennies more per share, but don't have to spend $5 per trade.
Citadel, and other trade executors, are refusing to buy shares for retail traders. Coincidentally, Citadel also bailed out Melvin fund for their short position in GME. So, Citadel has an interest in not letting the price go up any further. And citadel controls trade execution for dozens of firms.
This is definitely illegal. But Citadel is betting that the resulting SEC fines from this illegal manipulation will be less than the loss they would get if they didn't suppress the price.
I'm just not really sure I understand the narratives being thrown around right now, and I'd like to think I understand the economy somewhat
Melvin Capital closed out their short position yesterday with a large loss - and Citadel helped cover that loss.
As far as I know, Citadel and Melvin Capital no longer are holding any short positions in Gamestop. So what do they have to gain, by your narrative, from suppressing the price?
Citadel is probably making bank off of this actually, like a lot of other sell-side firms.
If SEC decides at some point that this was pump-and-dump scheme (even crowdsourced), the Citadel may become liable for enabling that scheme, even if they do not run it themselves.
It seems unlikely to me that Citadel would be liable. They're just processing bulk transactions -- they have no direct contact with customers. You could just as well blame the NYSE.
If it's true they refused to process for certain securities for their downstream clients, then I believe "When?" and "Why?", specifically in relation to other actions, become legally relevant questions.
How likely is it for them to close their position when the price hit so high? That would be a huge loss. Why not wait a bit, make a few desperate phone calls and leverage their power before that?
Because of the expiration date of the short they sold and uncertainty over whether the price would continue to increase.
If you have to buy by EOD Friday and the price starts skyrocketing Thursday, you might want to buy a little earlier even if it means eating a huge loss, because you don't know if that skyrocket will continue into the next day.
Shorts aren't options, they don't have expiration dates. You can hold a short indefinitely just by paying interest on the borrowed share value when you entered the position. You can even keep the short from being forcibly closed during a squeeze by providing more collateral.
Put options do expire, but the worst case for puts is that they expire worthless. Regular shorts can have unbounded losses.
"Melvin’s most recent filing showed that it held 5.4 million puts on GameStop, valued at more than $55 million — an increase of 58 percent during the third quarter."
If it were just puts, then their exposure to a run-up would have been 55 million, not billions. Puts can only go to zero. The filing merely hinted that they were shorting the stock because they also had some puts on it.
Think about it, if you buy a $9 put for $10, the most you could lose is $10 when the stock goes way above $9. The unlimited loss scenario with options is writing (selling) a naked call, where you receive a premium but if the stock price rises above the strike price your loss rises.
Melvin's position must have been mostly short equity. Perhaps only a few million shares of a $3 stock.
You don't need an "emergency infusion of 3 billion dollars" if you just bought put options that are now deep OTM. As you mentioned, the total downside is capped at 100%.
They clearly had real exposure and serious panic. If they were using put options they were leveraged or had non-standard terms (not the same as typical retail investors)
I have to admit I'm missing something in this story. If the shorts do not have to sell, what's the endgame for WSB? Is it just the margin requirements will be too high, thus forcing lots of them to close their position? I see lots of references to the short squeeze happening tomorrow, so there must be something that force people to settle their position tomorrow?
What happens when the party you borrowed the stock from, seeing the new high price, wants to sell it to cash in on the fever? Can they not force close the position if the price moved up by some threshold?
The other commenter is right that shorts have unlimited risk, and put option are defined, but they can technically be short by selling calls which would make them expire-able.
But honestly I doubt it was even possible to be short so much with options alone on such a low cap company (as it was before this blew up)
> They didn't tell you how much of the position they closed out on. They can say "they closed their position" even if they only closed out on 1% of it.
There is no ambiguity in what "closing the position" means. Stating on CNBC that you have closed the position when in fact you only bought shares to cover 1% of your short would put you in jail.
Your mental model for how the world works is wrong.
The thing the SEC is going to take issue with is lying to investors. Investors have a right to know what's going on with their money.
And despite how it seems from outside Wall Street, hedge funds are definitely scared of the SEC. Banks worry less because their money is sourced differently. Hedge funds have to worry about legal action not just for the fines but also for scaring their investors. When individual investors are so large it only takes a few redemptions to significantly impact AUM.
> As far as I know, Citadel and Melvin Capital no longer are holding any short positions in Gamestop. So what do they have to gain, by your narrative, from suppressing the price?
If this is accurate then your question makes sense. Why? But how do we know this is real though? They could play games as well and I'm sure they do. Stock trading is gambling.
Citadel securities does not "play games", they aren't YOLO-ing on a GME short. They are happy to model the market so they can hedge better than their competitors and make money off of the bid-ask spread.
Melvin Capital has already stated they have closed out their position, think it would probably be fraud if they hadn't.
You may work on some fancy model but at the end of the day you are taking a risk and there is a possibility to lose in the worst possible way. Call it games, YOLO or hedge better than competitors.
Maybe, the problem was just transferred to someone else so they can remove it from their statements. And now that someone is trying to deal with this.
Unless we have trustable source with all the details on how that position has been closed, I don't think it's safe to assume anything.
> you are taking a risk and there is a possibility to lose in the worst possible way. Call it games, YOLO or hedge better than competitors.
Sure, there is some risk in liquidity provisioning, but I think you are really not understanding what market makers do and conflating it with hedge funds.
>> Melvin Capital has already stated they have closed out their position, think it would probably be fraud if they hadn't.
IANAL but I doubt this would be fraud -- they arent a public corporation making statements about themselves. They did have LPs, but i'm not sure what restrictions there are around speaking -- would anyone know?
IANAL also, but I would imagine that they would need to represent themselves accurately to their investors at the very least. Perhaps they could be telling their investors something different privately?
Yes, hedge funds send their LPs private "Investor Letters" with a lot more detail. Not sure who the public statement was meant for, but it might have been meant to discourage the public from taking opposing positions.
You wouldnt communicate to your LPs via CNBC or Twitter.
Which "spokesman" made that statement? Pretty easy to deny no?
"Melvin Capital has repositioned our portfolio over the past few days. We have closed out our position in GME (GameStop)," the spokesman said in a statement. [1]
> Melvin Capital has already stated they have closed out their position, think it would probably be fraud if they hadn't.
Two points:
1. As I understood it, they closed *A* position, not their whole position, and announced that in the hopes it would deflate the stock price so Melvin doesn't crater.
2. And what, exactly, would be the punishment for this fraud, assuming they even get prosecuted and convicted? Can you put a dollar figure on it? Now put a dollar figure on how much they would lose if they didn't make that announcement, and compare the two numbers.
If Melvin Capital got out, then why was the stock still 140% shorted after that announcement? I thought that 11% of the shorted stock was from Melvin Capital, it doesn't make sense that there was no significant change in that figure.
> If Melvin Capital got out, then why was the stock still 140% shorted after that announcement? I thought that 11% of the shorted stock was from Melvin Capital, it doesn't make sense that there was no significant change in that figure.
Source?
Also potentially new shorters getting in? I shorted AMC yesterday and have made quite a bit today.
Yesterday, there was a 140% short position on Gamestop.
Today, there is still a 122% short position on Gamestop. There are still many funds hedged against GME. Melvin might have had one of the larger positions, but there are many more funds with this position. Source: https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=GME
As you say, they would make money by running the orders, regardless if GME goes up or down. So - why would they stop? It is most likely that Citadel is still exposed to other funds holding short positions in GME.
There is literally no evidence that Citadel has stopped serving GME orders. That is entirely the conjecture of this thread and ignores the much more likelier option that it was Robinhood that limited the stocks.
Why wouldn't you short GME after the price has risen so high? I'm sure there are plenty of hedge funds shorting now at a much higher price.
Hell, I shorted AMC yesterday and have made quite a bit off of that already.
What if the price goes up further? It's already rebounded 50% from the short ladder/blatant robinhood manipulation. Why put yourself on the hook for something during a black swan event?
Lots of individual retail investors, including myself, take short positions on a regular basis. People keep saying that all the short positions are held by hedge funds, but in reality there's a lot of individual investors that have short positions too.
The risk to a company that processes trades is that many of these retail investors accounts would turn negative and the company that processes the trades would take giant losses they did not plan for. To prevent that, they stop processing trades.
>Melvin Capital closed out their short position yesterday with a large loss
This is something many people are claiming is false. As far as I can find, Melvin have not issues any formal statement on the matter - this claim is purely based on a CNBC "source".
Everyone who buys options is doing business with citadel. They're the originator of most options. HFT firms are inescapable because their very reason for existing is to provide the market with the best prices.
I am curious about holding GME. Is your plan to keep it long term? If not what are you plans to unwind your positions? Certain price point? Certain time frame?
Which IMO is silly. Institutional investors hold 160% of GME’s float. For every institutional investor wanting it to tank there are others who want to see it rise. It’s not like the institutions all agree or anything - “The man” is on both sides of this.
They are collecting interest from hedgefunds for the short positions and collecting interest from brokerages for capital they provide for margin accounts. They win no matter what.
Additionally, I speculate that Citadel/RH/IBKR and any other brokers that stopped buys on GME/AMC had sign-off from regulators (SEC etc.) where the fines they will surely incur would be limited to non-existent.
Not only hedge funds and brokers colluding against the retail investors, but the government as well. Yeah...sounds about right.
Who wins from a more limited market? It seems to me suspending trades locks people from selling as much as it locks them from buying, and short sellers should be happy to have a more liquid market,not less.
> Citadel also bailed out Melvin fund for their short position in GME. So, Citadel has an interest in not letting the price go up any further.
Citadel bailed out Melvin Capital. Not its position. Melvin doesn't have a short position anymore.
Melvin made a stupid bet. Citadel bailed them out. Private sector bailouts aren't free: Citadel got its pound of flesh. Even if they bought the entire portfolio, that portfolio no longer includes GameStop shorts.
If Citadel's asset management and market making arms are colluding, that is illegal. But it's the most complicated and stupid explanation of the bunch. Market makers stop quoting for all kinds of reasons. If I were still on my options market making desk, I'd be pulling the plug on this. My traders would yell at me. This is what you make money on in market making! But the risks of loss go up with volatility, and the costs of gamma getting away can be nasty.
The chances that a fund the size of Citadel has any strong opinion on the direction of GameStop stock is vanishingly low. The chances that they stopped quoting in the name, as did almost every other market maker, and thereby broke Robinhood's system, which doesn't--to my knowledge--directly interface with exchanges to any significant degree, is high.
I certainly get pulling the plug on options, but I don't understand how the volatility in $GME would lead a market maker to simply stop quoting the underlying stock altogether. If the price starts flying around you just widen your spread. If there's too much pressure on the buy side and you can't keep your position neutral, you just raise your offering price until you're not selling shares at too fast a rate anymore.
You're making assumptions that it was the liquidity provider who pulled the plug and not the much more likely option that it was Robinhood pulling the plug for liability reasons.
They've already been sued by retail investors who have lost their cash in the past and courts have already shown themselves to be somewhat partial to "the gamified interface just made me spend $1k I could barely afford because it was so fun!" arguments that RH is liable.
This is a much bigger deal, some (not hedge fund!) people are going to lose a crapton of money on it, and people are probably going to sue them once that happens.
You can see this discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Tastytrade also restricted trade in the same manner. They send a mail to all customers and made it very clear that it was Apex Clearing who forced their hand. It is very unlikely that something different happened at Robinhood.
Market makers on exchanges generally have a contractual uptime obligation if I am not mistaken, but I'm not sure that applies when talking about payment for order flow.
Gme has been freezing up for a few seconds to fifteen minutes at a time for days now. Sounds like a breach to me, unless someone else ordered a halt. Robinhood itself was responsive, as were other stocks.
> I don't understand how the volatility in $GME would lead a market maker to simply stop quoting the underlying stock altogether. If the price starts flying around you just widen your spread.
People after the financial crisis liked to talk about fat tails. Risk models assuming narrow tails, reality having a taste for extreme events. This is a fat-tail event. We don't have great models for stocks as volatile and as correlated as GME is right now. Which means for even cash equities trading, we don't have a great sense around what the appropriate spread should be.
Market making has sometimes been described as vacuuming up nickels in front of bulldozers. These are bulldozin' times. You don't want to fill a bunch of sell orders in GME right before it gaps down 80%.
I mean, we can see that this idea that the stock is too risky to quote is not true because there is a two-sided market in it right now, which can be traded on multiple platforms. The only actually existing peculiarity here is that Robinhood is not allowing customers in possession of 100% margin to open a new long position.
I don't think it's an issue of Citadel not quoting GME. In my understanding, Robin Hood is allowing purchases to close a short position, so there exist quoted prices, they just don't want people expanding a long position.
If this is coming from Robin Hood, they could make the (very weak) argument that they are protecting their retail customers from themselves, but if it's coming from Citadel, it just looks like market manipulation to me.
I don't think it's coming from RobinHood; eToro is also blocking buys and they have the message "We have made this change following a notification from our liquidity provider that they have set $GME to close only status".
I got similar email from tasty. They said Apex clearing won't allow any new positions on meme stocks.
Given that it's not just RH, but nearly all, if not all, brokers that outsource order flow like RH...I think it's safe to assume it wasn't RH decision.
An internalizer must match displayed NBBO at the exchanges. If it can’t, it has to route to the exchange, pay exchange fees, and on top of that still pay for the order flow.
Normally internalizers have no problem competing with spreads on the exchanges, because retail flow is much less toxic than the sophisticated traders in the public venues. But with GME, the retail investors are running the show.
Therefore it no longer makes sense for internalizers to pay for this order flow.
Today it opened at $265, hit a high of $483 and dropped to a low of $112. At 2:00 pm it was $226, 2:05pm it was $431, and then came back down to $237 at 2:15pm. That sort of volatility is, I think, unprecedented which means the market makers don't have good risk models. So you're right that they could be cleaning up here with a large spread. But that profit comes at unknown levels of risk.
> The chances that a fund the size of Citadel has any strong opinion on the direction of GameStop stock is vanishingly low
I didn't touch this in the first place, but once it was clear it was a short squeeze, nope, not gonna play that game. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
A short squeeze is nice if you get caught in in by accident as a stock owner. During the Volkswagen short squeeze a lot of lower level employees at Volkswagen were suddenly able to fully pay back their mortgage. Isn't that cute?
I doubt many gamestop employees got to do that this week, but there was a similar, smaller drama also going on with a Blackberry short squeeze, and that might have gotten a few extra mortgage payments taken care of.
Citadel din't bail them out and they didn't close the positions, if they did, the "bailout" would be a complete writeoff -- why would Citadel do that?
Citadel probably gave them the cash to avoid a margin call, knowing they can later manipulate the market and the shorts would payoff in the end, and Citadel would get their share of the spoils.
Otherwise a bailout makes no economical sense, Citadel is not the FED, they can't print money just to cover someone elses losses.
> if they did, the "bailout" would be a complete writeoff
What? No it wouldn't.
Melvin faced cash calls. To raise cash fast they could (a) get it from their LPs (fat chance), (b) raise it from someone else or (c) sell other assets. The last option is a fire sale. You figure out what the fire sale discount would be, say it's 50%, and then use that to get (b).
I don't know what the terms of the bailout were. If I were structuring, I'd make it a loan with a super-high interest rate triply collateralized by their remaining assets. If they pay it back, I get the super high interest rate. If they default, I get the rest of their assets for 33¢ on the dollar. Between those two, the latter is frankly the higher-payoff scenario. (I would also require all short positions be closed out within N days, with the borrower's investors bearing the losses.)
Are you saying that Citadel just lent someone money to close short positions worth a very significant percentage of their total assets? (Melvin having 11 bilion in total assets and Citadel giving them 3 billion).
That's what I was pointing out!
Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did), they just got more rope from Citadel, and Citadel was willing to do just that knowing they can manipulate the market.
The narative of Melvin was "Citadel gave us 3 billion dollars, we closed our shorts at a loss, you won wsb, aren't you happy, you won, now leave us alone and stop buying".
> Citadel just lent someone money to close short positions worth a very significant percentage of their total assets?
Yes. Those other assets are presumably uncorrelated to this short position. If they were fire sold, depending on the assets, they could have gotten 20¢ or 30¢ on the dollar.
That discount gives Melvin the incentive to borrow, even at exorbitant rates. It protects the rest of the portfolio. With the bailout, the GameStop loss is capped and eaten by LPs. That sucks. But it sucks less than eating that loss and selling off the rest of the portfolio for peanuts.
> Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did)
You're alleging securities fraud. This may be the case! But we have zero evidence of it. And if Citadel and Point72 invested $3bn to aid and abet securities fraud, that would be quite stupid.
No "they" didn't. Wall Street is not a homogenous thing. You're thinking of banks in particular, which are about as different from hedge funds categorically as Facebook and Salesforce. Sure they're both tech companies with software products, but they have entirely different business models.
"[Melvin] was rescued with a $2.75 billion cash infusion from two other hedge fund titans, Steve Cohen and Ken Griffin. Cohen was Plotkin's former boss at SAC Capital Management. SAC shuttered after the firm pled guilty to insider trading and paid $1.3 billion in fines. Cohen was not personally charged. Griffin runs Citadel LLC ...
In exchange, Citadel and Point72, the successor firm to SAC, own an undisclosed stake in Melvin Capital Management."
I stare at this crap all day and I've seen no indicator that Melvin has closed a large percentage of their position, let alone all of it. I will 100 percent allege securities fraud.
Think about it, you're staring at a mob of people willing to buy the stock at absurd prices... Why would you announce that you've closed your shorts instead of keeping quiet and profiting of the mob?
The answer is they didn't close it, they were trying to get the mob to back off.
And no, it technically wouldn't be fraud, they were very careful with their words...
> How have they exited their short position when the short interest is still ~130% though?
Lots of people are short? I know at least half a dozen people who bought puts over the last few days. Those puts hedge into shorting the same way calls turn into buying.
Hmm. There seems to be a lot of unknowns right now. Do you think the information about how this all went down will come out once it's over?
I'd say most of the wallstreetbets traders still believe Melvin has their position, but you're saying otherwise. Though the still extremely high short interested doesn't seem to make sense if the big losers already exited...
> Do you think the information about how this all went down will come out once it's over?
I do. This will make partners out of a solid suite of securities lawyers around the country. But we won't have clear answers for at least another 6 months.
High short interests make a lot of sense right now, you have a shitty company with a market cap above 50% of the S and P 500 trading at multiples higher than IP rich tech companies like Apple. The stock is overvalued many times over regardless of whether you use sentiment or NPV’s. The more overpriced a stock becomes the more bears will join the marketplace, that’s inevitable. Most hedge funds take losses once the price goes about 30% over their position, most early bears definitely went above this but there is little chance they are still holding. That means that these new shorts are likely to have set prices in the $250 plus range, where the potential returns are astronomical and the little guys trying to stick it to the man are likely to foot the vast majority of the Bill whilst making the man and a small number of early buyers a shit load of money
If the early bears have already exited I would have expected the price to jump higher though.
Also, from what people are saying on WSB, there's no liquidity left in the market which is why some platforms halted trading for $GME.
If the early shorts were all out I wouldn't expect a lack of liquidity, since more recent short positions wouldn't be under as much pressure.
I'm a complete noob, but it seems like literally no one can agree on what's happening and why even though there seem to be valid arguments on all sides.
But also possible the underlying data was collected by EOD the day prior. Point is it's not a very clear data source IMO. Would be nice if real time short interest was public info.
How is it legal for it _not_ to be? Keeping that information hidden drastically incentivizes naked short selling -- and there is an exploit for naked shorts that will be incredibly difficult to prevent going forward ... no -- the exploit does not really rely on collective action -- it relies on the perception of collective action -- which is definitely fake able in an automated way with current technologies.
Naked shorts at this scale are gonna have to go away and no one will have more incentive to reach that goal than main street wall street ... ideally they can and should do this in a way that simply involves making more information public ...
The higher the price goes, the more incentive for new people to buy short, who aren't subject to the same pressure to get out fast that the ones who've been there longer were.
Doing this all in such a publicly-coordinated way on Reddit means you're wide open to people trying to directly play against your goals.
So much of the "proof" of things around this seems to be making big assumptions about who is on the other side that the aggregate numbers don't seem to indicate one way or another.
> There isn't enough stock for them to close their position
Tens of billions of dollars of GameStop have been bought and sold over the past few days. If you can buy GameStop to go long, you can buy it to cover a short.
Note that there isn't a limit on rehypothecation. A share sold short by Bob can be used by Anna to cover her pre-existing short.
Yes, even if it's the same share that Anna sold to Bob short in the first place. That's how you get short interest > 100%. The market doesn't care, it only cares that a share was sold from Anna to Bob and then from Bob to Anna. The individual shares are completely fungible. (They don't actually exist, they're just numbers in a contract.)
Well surely that never happens. No large organization has ever committed securities fraud in order to make or save billions.
I hope you have a better reason why that's not likely than "but that's illegal." Them actively committing securities fraud seems to be the most likely occurrence from where I'm sitting.
Especially when they're staring at billions of losses and maybe all it takes to save them is a carefully worded public statement that they think they can later argue is technically truthful.
> No large organization has ever committed securities fraud in order to make or save billions.
Who would save billions? For how long?
Let's assume the statement is fraudulent. Before the statement was made, Melvin's LPs were set to get hosed. Melvin's general partners, the ones making the statements, have a lot of egg on their faces. But they didn't do anything wrong. They keep their money and houses and yachts. And in all likelihood, after a few months, craft a lessons-learned pitch and raise more money.
After the statement, they have engaged in fraud. Not only is criminal prosecution a risk. All those deep-pocketed LPs can now sue the general partners, personally, for breach of fiduciary duty.
Add to that the Citadel bailout, which removed the risk of the fund going under, and there is no reasonable explanation for lying about closing out the short. If you wanted to show resilience, you'd say something like "we've fully hedged our shorts with long-dated puts, reducing our expected profit but capping our losses."
This will probably be my least popular post ever, but the explanation needs to get out there for why Robinhood stopped trading on GME.
Selling a stock short is NOT illegal. It is a perfectly valid type of investment according to the SEC:
“D. Are short sales legal?
Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, abusive short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading in a security or to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales effected to manipulate the price of a stock are prohibited.”
Basically – you can’t short sell a stock to manipulate the price down so you can buy a lot more of it later. If you believe a stock is overpriced and short sell it, that is legal. That is exactly what tons of retail traders and hedge funds do every day, including on Gamestop.
On the other hand, manipulating a stock price upwards to cause a short squeeze IS illegal according to the same SEC article:
“Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.”
Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week. No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”. That is illegal according to the SEC.
Multiple brokerages, especially Robinhood, probably had their attorneys tell them that “Hey, you are aiding and abetting illegal activity by enabling a short squeeze and could be liable criminally or civilly if you continue to allow this blatant illegal activity on your platform”. So they decided to stop it by only allowing people to close their positions rather than open new ones in support of the short squeeze.
Another strong reason is that if the short squeeze caused the GME stock to go to 5000 in a sudden leap, tons of traders (both retail and professional) could instantly go broke, and then the brokerage (Robinhood) would be left holding the bag. For example, picture a retail investor with a Robinhood account had sold call options in the amount of $100,000 and their account was worth $200,000. If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000. Now multiply that by thousands of accounts…. no brokerage wants to take the risk of being bankrupted, so they shut it down.
The two strong reasons Robinhood and other brokers stopped trading was to prevent legal liability from enabling illegal activity on their platform, and for wanting to avoid potentially massive banktuptcy from traders unable to cover their losses.
Once again, I am not a shill as you keep posting on my comments. I am a real person and my blog is here - joelx.com. I have an opinion that is different than yours. I have no dog in this game.
Do you hold any positions related the question at hand? Are you trying to pump & dump the stock?
I don't have a position related to the question at hand, but I've certainly been observing closely over the last few days and for me personally it's pretty hard to shake the perception that a subreddit mostly specializing in financial market memes beat "the man" at his own game and now "the man" is changing the rules.
Meanwhile you're jumping on internet message boards to try and explain how "the man" is actually totally right in this situation and everyone should really go back to dutifully enriching him without questions.
I hold no positions related to the questions at hand. You however have gone from a random blogger who speaks largely about tech & politics and now is quite invested in defending a very crooked appearing move, all while making claims you can't support.
> No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”.
All of this started on Reddit because someone made a case for their fundamentals.
He is considered a legend by all of the people on WSB (of which I am not one) for it and kicked the whole thing off.
My question is.. how does a guy on Reddit and YouTube giving a fundamental analysis of why he valued a stock, and millions of people seeing value and buying it, differ from something akin to Mad Money?
DFW made his fundamentals case months ago and had a real (if possibly mistaken) case at that point.
In the last week though, after the massive increase in GME's stock price, the arguments on WSB have all been about the planned short squeeze and gamma squeeze to convince people to hold on or buy more.
This is crowd sourcing to create a coordinated attack like DDOS-ing, but how did we get here? Over-shorting. How did we get there? Hedge fund data sharing dinners? So this seems more like a swing back in the other direction. I presume when the dust settles the SEC will claw back these "illegal" gains from the individual investors. Too bad trades aren't settled via blockchain.
Taking the last week out of context makes little sense, because the last week is just a snowball that started on the 11th of January 2021, when Ryan Cohen and two of his friends from Chewy joined GameStop’s board, after building up a 13% stock position in the company over the course of the last few months. They believe that GameStop can be reimagined as a force in online retailing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-01-25/money-...
> Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week.
You're missing a party in that analysis. For this party, maybe it was a stupid idea for them to try and short sell in a market where the fed had pumped trillions into the economy and market activity, retail and otherwise, is at an unprecedented level of froth. But with that said, they are supposed to be professionals. It seems to be within reason to expect them to be able to hedge against the risk of a bunch of amateurs deciding to protest buy a piece of their childhood against being raided by Wall Street, no?
After all, "irrationally" holding assets that have sentimental value and allocating a large portion of whatever surplus earnings you have to it is a well known American tradition. Whatever the socioeconomic bracket, people have traditionally found ways to support causes and brands that they hold dear. Shouldn't large institutional clients be asking these fund managers why they're poking a beehive right now, and whether it might just be a little unnecessarily risky?
Robinhood has no stake in whether or not individual trader actions are legal, and the entire distinction between legal and illegal here is based on being able to determine individual trader's motives. Robinhood is acting illegally by your own argument by manipulating the price and availability of a stock.
Basically there was a good fundamental analysis with due diligence that GameStop was over shorted and priced under value. Some people thought it was a good analysis and started buying. When more people buy... the price goes up.
As the price goes up more people started to believe the thesis and piled in. At some point this just becomes momentum training which last I knew was legal.
It seems like you have taken a very narrow and biased view of the law that fits the narrative you like.
Citadel, Point72 to Invest $2.75 Billion Into Melvin Capital Management - WSJ [0]
Read As: Melvin no longer has a short position. Citadel (edit: or like someone else said, a 3rd party) does. Citadel will handle this. Melvin is in time out.
We'll figure out who holds the chips in a few weeks time when filing deadlines are due. Thus it's dark.
Thus explains the perfectly executed short ladder today - could only be pulled off by someone with more dry powder than Melvin - but if you look at the Level II data, this is going to take a long, long time.
Weather or not Melvin has the position, you can look at the borrow rates and short interest. Someone is balls deep in shorts and they have to cover one of these days.
That's not at all verified. Short interest is still well over 100% of float. The only thing you are going off is a poorly sourced CNBC report with wishy washy language from Plotkin.
No, or rather, only if MM's like Citadel over-short like they did here. It's a rare catch by retail that they were overextended, and retail pounced on the opportunity, just like the MM's do against retail all the fucking time, but now that the little guys are doing the fucking, it's all fetch me my smelling salts and call the sheriff!
Melvin capital is a market maker, it's in the list at least... You might check yourself before acting so high and mighty. 1 is the reference for wikipedia. 2 is just another source in case you doubt. By the way, Citadel is also on that list. Retail did do something to Citadel and Melvin... so wrong on both counts.
This entire GME WSB thing is a bunch of people wanting to feel important. That's why there's so much high-and-mighty talk even though the facts of the matter are..pretty boring.
It stops being boring when brokers start directly interfering with the volume by changing what traders are allowed to do in the middle of a trading day.
This makes no sense, if gme isn't shorted then why then break the law and restrict buying it?
And it does feel like they are restricting buys. Seems unlikely that all the trading platforms that rely on citadel coincidentally decided they wanted to hedge against volatility by restricting user buys.
I am ashamed to have written this comment. I didn't know about clearing houses and shouldn't have been so arrogant in a field I'm not familiar with. Funnily enough I put my money where my mouth was and profited, but that was just luck. Whatever.
Citadel is blocking trades on these stocks where Melvin Capital holds shorts for any platform that uses them; Robinhood is just the most prominant among small retail traders.
Citadel "bailed out Melvin Capital" because Citadel essentially owns Melvin and so their loss is our loss sort of situation. Melvin Capital stated they had closed out their short position on GameStop, but those are huge losses to cover no one knows how true that is. There is a lot of rumor that Citadel/Melvin Capital re-bought short positions yesterday before Citadel restricted trades to manipulate the market. If this is true it is highly illegal, but this effectively allow Citadel/Melvin to make back their losses if they can force market prices down.
TL/DR, Citadel/Melvin are breaking the law, all the retail traders are getting fucked, but when this is done Citadel/Melvin ends up having more cash than ever.
The question is, would there be any consequence if he lied about it? Given the huge amount of losses, it’s not unreasonable for one to lied about closing their position in hopes of the price falling down.
I wonder whether Citadel was the / a major lender for the shares in the first place. That would explain a lot. But even then, I doubt that there was foul play.
> The chances that a fund the size of Citadel has any strong opinion on the direction of GameStop stock is vanishingly low.
I find it exceedingly unlikely that Citadel has no opinion on the value of a stock that could make or break a firm they just lent massive amounts of money to.
It's also very unlikely that Melvin didn't have a short position anymore. I think that was a lie, knowing the SEC fine would be less than what they otherwise would lose. We'll see - maybe. Or maybe TPTB will cover this up.
Exactly this. They know there will be lawsuits and they know there might be SEC fines, but they are betting that those two will total up to be less than the billions it would cost them to cover a short position at $500-$600 per share.
The question I have is, can this be prosecuted criminally and can those in charge be threatened with actual jail time from this?
But I don't think they are expecting the backlash that this had received. As a Robinhood user I am making it clear that this is not okay by withdrawing all of my funds and cancelling my Gold account, and I hope others will do the same.
Problem is, the losses will never really be known. Shorts have an arbitrarily high loss potential, but nobody knows how high GME would have climbed without Robinhood manipulating it down.
Can most brokers route trades directly through the market or use another market maker if something like this happens?
I assumed Citadel would actually be cleaning up market making GME with all the trading and volatility, but maybe the trades are too coordinated. What they're paying for is order flow from unsophisticated investors; they don't want to deal with hedge funds and the games they play. Maybe these trades are close enough to something a hedge fund would do, so the orders aren't worth it?
I think there must be laws that say the CEO and the board must get prison terms (preferably life, with no possibility of parole) for these crimes.
No, I will not listen to hogwash like "you shouldn't be responsible for the actions of people you hire". BS. They report to you. Even if they did it on their own, why didn't you reverse it? If you are not responsible for the actions of your employees or contractors, don't hire them. Close down. See if I care.
I think it's generally because most Americans would be looking at ridiculously long prison sentences for common actions if they got caught (like possession) and because the US's general view is that there isn't anything in the world that can't be cured by throwing more prison time at it.
Not if you were black and used crack. And pretty much any prison for posession and use is rediculous, if its a problem for the user it is a mental health issue and prison is the wrong treatment. And of course the limits on what determines if you're a dealer is set low enough, and carrier laws meant that many users were getting prosecuted like dealers. And what defines a "dealer" since someone doing a group buy for three friends is significantly less socially problematic than someone trafficking drugs across the border.
I of course agree. It is ridiculous. I also grew up in one of the cities that was the center of the so-called "crime epidemic." We've definitely improved on sentencing since 30 years ago.
I just don't think it is accurate to say that people are getting super long sentences for possession anymore and I don't think it is right to use that as justification for longer sentences for other people.
three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc.
if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you.
there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.
Afaik there is a recording of Nixon saying that they want to use drug penalties to go after black people and hippies. A lot of times those racially biased outcomes are the product of many unrelated parts of a big and complicated system, but in this case the top of executive government seemed pretty deliberate about this.
There is no such recording. A reporter who interviewed an aide of Nixon for his autobiography claimed that that aide said that (but he only claimed so after the aide had died).
There is indeed no such recording - but calling the official an "aide" is a bit inaccurate, the official in question was the domestic policy chief[1] - rather than a random secretary that claims to have overheard something.
That all said, for all of the negative PR Nixon has received over the years he was a rather progressive and surprisingly egalitarian executive who has been praised by Indian Country Today[2] and appears to have stuck pretty close to his quaker upbringings. I think a lot of people conflate Nixon and Regan - which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the policies those two presidents actually pursued during their terms... And even more folks are getting second hand vibes from Nixon's infamous presidential debate[3] which pitted a rather uncharismatic man against JFK and led to a pretty obvious outcome.
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc Just FYI - if you've never seen this I'd suggest giving it a go sometime. Given recent politics it's almost fantastical to listen to two folks come into a debate focused on the issues and minimizing the ways they attacked each other.
Boomers hated Nixon because he undermined the Vietnam peace process for personal political gain elongating the war that they then had to go to the trouble of dodging the draft (as long as they were rich enough).
We can be as cynical as we like about boomers and then going on to be Reagan voters, it doesn't change Nixon and Kissenger's status as unprosecuted war criminals.
I'm not overly familiar with Quaker orthodoxy, I'd be surprised if dropping bombs killing 500k Cambodians is consistent with it. Nixon wasn't all bad because no human is, even he who must not be named was kind to (some) children, we're told.
I think the important bit is that the chief/aide/whatever didn't claim to have overheard anything at all, rather someone who talked to them claimed that they said Nixon had said that.
Hard to laud Nixon in my view, he was pretty clearly a racist man and was the originator of the "welfare queen" rhetoric (and the corresponding cuts in SNAP, etc.).
I don't know about blacks or hippies, but Last Week Tonight played an Oval Office tape of Nixon wanting to target marijuana laws because those in favor (of legalization) were Jewish.
A jail sentence for such a well positioned white collar criminal is probably comparable to a retreat lodge. Such an institution certainly doesn't have prison bars and a fenced perimeter because it is low security and has a special privilege.
So what - somehow somewhere someone will have the power to jail these white collar criminals for their entire life, but they don't have the power to make a 5 year jail sentence more uncomfortable?
These people are leveraging everything in their power to fuck over millions to save themselves money. We put them away for 5 years and they still come out billionaires in the end, why wouldn't they do it?
Apparently in America there are huge prisons owned by private companies, traded on stock market of course.
With this scenario one can quite easily imagine that incarcerating more and more inmates for maximally long periods of time could be something that is wanted and desired.
Because nothing happened when wall street bankrupted the country by gambling and needed to be bailed out in 2008, and then paid themselves huge bonuses.
Very few people actually got punished, but a lot changed since 2008. Executives were forced to step down. Several major players went bankrupt and many more lost 95%+ of their valuations. Anecdotally, I hear that companies are taking compliance much more seriously. HN would call the surveillance at banks today Orwellian if they were more knowledgable about it.
I think, at this point, we’d be happy to see any actual punishment doled out to the “upper classes”. We know it will never happen, so we wish for absurd things.
I spent my childhood around kids from broken families, most of whom had parents in prison on long sentences for nonviolent drug charges. I saw lots of my friends lose their houses in the 00s. I entered a job market that treats just about everyone as disposable; unworthy of training, investment, benefits, time off, bathroom breaks, ppe, or a livable wage.
Wall sts focus on the short term has been like napalm on these issues and made fixing them political suicide. I don't say this lightly; wall st has enslaved America for profit.
>The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90% [1]
The proletariat is showing their heads and nipping at the ankles of everyone. Some are misguided, but beating a hedge fund at their own game, trying to convince boomers that black lives matter enough to not be executed by police, or Medicare for All or forgiving student loan debt are all extremely well studied solutions to systemic issues in America that will not be meaningfully addressed until the root problems are addressed: money in politics, racism, trickle down economics, class inequality, asset inflation, health care, employee rights, war on drugs, etc, etc, etc.
This specific incident was a fluke of luck that required ridiculously overpaid bros in cushy hedge fund jobs to count past 100% while shorting gme/nok/AMC which is playing with the lives and livelihood of the people that work in each of those companies. Needless to say, but watching billionaires repeat '08 with gamestop, amc, and Nokia ruffled a lot of feathers. Gme especially brought out some whales with money to burn in the chase of infinite gains.
Maybe this was an elaborate psyop to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't. If so, great job, if not, well maybe the fat cats on wall st and in Congress should come around my hood and experience the hopelessness for themselves, that's an open invitation for as long as this account is active for any billionaires or US politicians not already arguing against the same issues I am to come and walk in my shoes.
Hopefully this incident spurs some change in wall st and the culture there. Congress certainly doesn't have the courage to.
Because nothing ever happens to the rich when all you do is take a bit of their money away. They have so much that they will get it back merely for being wealthy, and as we just saw with the recent pardons, they won't even serve their entire sentence even when they're stealing the life savings of hundreds.
To clarify: you will never pay more than market price (i.e. you will never have to pay more than the best order sitting on the book). Citadel or whoever will only internalize your order if they're willing to offer you a better price than market price. Otherwise RH is obligated to match your order with the best price currently available.
They are willing to do this because they would prefer not to leave orders sitting on the books, and there's a fee for taking orders off the books which they would prefer not to pay.
in futures, your refusing to execute an order for risk management is not illegal. as well as slamming you out of stupid positions. i can only hope equities execution houses are as coherent
If that is the case, then it leads one to wonder why Robin Hood wouldn't come out and say so to avoid all the blowback they're getting. I suppose the obvious answer is that they don't want to burn bridges with Citadel.
Exactly, while WeBull firmly pointed the finger at their market makers, Robinhood is treating it's customers like children and telling us they're banning trades for our own good while secretly collaborating with Wall Street in the background. They are a disgrace to the name "Robinhood."
I guess I understand where you are coming from, but they way I understand it is that RH submits a bulk order for a stock and gets a quote from the MM, which the MM thinks is appropriate. The MM then adjusts its own portfolio accordingly, buying/selling the underlying stock at its own pace.
So, more or less as described, but the order is a little different, right?
Market makers fulfill a bunch of orders, they then have until end of day to get into a delta neutral position. They prefer to trade against retail traders because retail traders are typically uncorrelated, which means that vast majority of trades cancel out (but MM still collects the bid-ask spread on the trades!). When you make markets for counter-parties that include big institution there is always a risk that the "small" trades you're fulfilling will be very correlated (because a big institution is actually breaking-up and feeding you a big trade). This is called adverse selection and will force MM to start buying to get to a neutral position (which means that the bid-ask spread they are collecting will have to be paid to some other seller).
What Citadel and others are doing is they are saying to RH "your order flow is uncorrelated and we'd like to make markets for it, we will charge your users slightly lower bid-ask spread (price improvement for user) and we will also give you a slice of the bid-ask spread we do collect, in return the uncorrelated nature of the orders will ensure that we won't have to do much trades in order to maintain a neutral position."
This proposition is actually good for
1. RH users (they get price improvement relative to NBBO)
2. RH (they get to make money and get a user base)
3. Participating market makers (they get much steadier cash flow from MM activity).
It is bad for
1. Big institutions, they get to pay larger spread than they would if the market was more diluted by retails
2. Non-participating MM (they increase the bid-ask spread to make sure it's still worth their time but there is more volatility and it's a competitive market so mis-pricing the spread is a real problem).
Also, current GME shenanigans are net good for MM since MM is a business that makes money on volume, not direction.
Rumor mill says that the White House and Sequoia called RH to force their hand. Honestly, I wouldn't expect anything less. I say this because 2% drawdown of the stock market didn't happen for zero reason. It happened because these fools are leveraged up to their ass (metaphor) and the bet cost them severely. And it's cheaper to take the bad PR while salvaging your fuck up. These people act in a different set of rules and that's not okay.
IMHO, I'm concerned about this because this is a 1st amendment problem. Let grown adults gamble. Let them be responsible for their dumb actions (hedge and retail alike). If someone is 'too big to fail' then they are 'too big to exist'.
> Gambling isn't even legal in most states. Good luck arguing that.
What States are you not allowed to short or long? Using your logic, this is cognitive dissonance. How free people spend their money is an act of speech, PACs and SuperPACs are emboldened by this current legal fact.
No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.
> No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.
Maybe you need explicit help to understand my position. If hedge funds can short/long stocks, there should be nothing preventing a retail investor from doing the same.
As for it being speech, well, corporations are people and PAC/SuperPAC political donations (read: blackbox donations) are speech. These are current USA facts.
From there, I extrapolate that it would be unfair to regulate Main Street instead of Wall Street. This wouldn't be such a massive problem if Wall Street wasn't allowed so much leverage (and short 140% of the company shares...how is that even legal. That's literally fraud). I can't sell you 100% of my property and then sell 40% to someone else.
>Citadel, and other trade executors, are refusing to buy shares for retail traders.
Any evidence on this? RH said the opposite:
>To be clear, this was a risk-management decision, and was not made on the direction of the market makers we route to. We’re beginning to open up trading for some of these securities in a responsible manner.
> This is definitely illegal. But Citadel is betting that the resulting SEC fines from this illegal manipulation will be less than the loss they would get if they didn't suppress the price.
It's not really a bet when they're 50% certain they can get away with no fine, 99% certain the SEC fine will be < 10% of the profit, and 100% certain the fine won't be > 100% of the profit.
Citadel Securities is not Citadel Investments.
This is important, because they operate on different sides of this:
Citadel Securities is the market maker that is interested in Robinhood's flow.
Citadel Investments is the hedge fund that bailed out Melvin.
Now, whether it's good that they're connected, and up to what extent they should be allowed to is an important question.
Even if there had been some kind of illegal collusion, it doesn't seem likely that stopping trading would have helped Melvin to cover their short position, which they ended up doing.
I think it is probably illegal but SEC fines are so light they are just considered part of the price of doing businesses. If the SEC did something more reasonable like charge 5% o revenue for a year then these companies would sit up and take notice.
The weird thing is that Citadel Securities and Citadel are different entities. Citadel Fund went to the rescue of Melvin Capital and Citadel Securities stopped the buying trades. Suspicious eh?
> Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)?
They're not siding against their customers. The median Robinhood trader that buys in at $350 is going to be left holding the bag when the price drops back down to $10. You can argue whether or not the paternalism is good or bad, but this is obviously going to on net stop more people from losing money than making money.
> Whether the investments being made are responsible or not, it doesn't seem like it should be their place to intervene.
The entire history of the retail investing is unsophisticated investors shooting themselves in the foot and then turning around and suing everyone who allowed them to shoot themselves in the foot. It's obvious to everyone watching that for every retail investor who buys in at $10 and cashes out at the top there are going to be 20 other traders who FOMO in at $300 or $500 and then hodls all the way down to $10. People have a stated preference for Freedom to take risks but a revealed preference for paternalism (they start suing everyone around them for not "protecting" them from themselves when risks go bad). You can't blame companies for rationally responding to the legal liability they think they will incur if they let more retail traders pile onto meme stocks.
Are they banning people from trading the stock or trading the stock on margin? On margin would be reasonable, if the volatility of the stock becomes very high, the broker is taking a credit risk on its client it may not want (plus suitability consideration). It may also make sense to restrict access to certain stocks if they are deemed too complicated/dangerous to retail investors. But I doubt the suitability would be a function of a market movement.
Or is the platform assuming that its clients are doing market manipulation by coordinating on reddit to push the price up, and wants no part to a crime being committed.
Just speculating, but can think of some reasonable reasons.
They're not letting you open new positions in the stock or options on the stock. You can only close your existing position. Guaranteed way to make the price go down.
What's played out over the last week has been an epic battle between David and Goliath. Goliath is winning... per usual.
Translation: big business interests and wall street hedge funds win out. Of course, lots of retail guys and gals and r/wsb folks are losing their shirts today. It would have been next week if it didnt happen today.
"Can someone help me understand Robinhood's POV? This just seems so outrageous"
You are a mall owner and 25 000 people are stampeding through your mall causing a ruckus which will in the end create no value for anyone.
This is speculative mania with no basis in any kind of market reality, people are actively acting against the best interests of the participants, especially the companies themselves.
The lack of understanding here is what is 'shocking'.
BlackBerry, Robin Hood, Citadel, NASDAQ - nobody wants to be part of this.
It's ridiculous that people think they are somehow 'doing good' or even have some kind of inalienable right to own shares in a company on whatever terms.
This is a 'market riot' nobody wants to be involved but the rioters.
CFOs are all very nervous right now and I wouldn't doubt if some of the target companies have asked for protection.
There are a couple of charitable explanations for Robinhood acting this way.
One is that most Robinhood users probably under-estimate how quickly they can sell if the price turns around quickly. There might not be enough willing buyers for all of the Robhinhood users who might be looking to get out at the same time.
Another thing is that I'm not a lawyer, but they could be worried that if the SCC finds the discussions on Reddit constitute a conspiracy to manipulate the market, and it's primarily being executed through their platform, and they're aware of the conspiracy and take no action...
To be honest I ignored the whole topic until today.
But in my opinion the rationale is obvious: you buy a stock, that means you provide that company with liquidity that they can use to operate and grow their business. I guess especially in the startup scene VCs and investors are in high regard since they believe in the future value and perhaps also the product of a company.
Example: imagine I'm a hedge fund and put so much money into company x that the stock moves up. The company probably thinks I gonna fund their business for a few years (remember, stocks are long-term investments). Stock rises, they do a few risky choices. Suddenly I pull back my money. That would suck.
I think options and futures have reasonable functions, especially to stabilize investments and raw material purchase. But speculation can easily get unreasonable, you basically speculate with the liquidity/credit of other companies that actually care what they do. The irony is that futures have been invented to stabilize food production, I think since almost 1000 years. But probably you don't want a large hedge fund play with this stuff.
Also to put on another perspective. People are crazy about fairness on markets, even the super free US market has strict cartel laws. On the other hand large funds like Blackrock are so large, they have government-like powers. They even have the power to decide whether companies should stay or steer away from coal energy. That's even worse than a monopoly.
Execution risk that they can’t handle. When you buy/sell stock on Robinhood, they hold execution risk until they net out your position by transacting a large enough order on the market. In this situation they don’t know how to manage the execution risk on these trades, so they are losing money, so they don’t want to do them.
Serious question: Since RobinHood is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics?
This is the natural evolution when censorship as we've recently seen is given a pass.
You know the adage usually applied to Facebook, "If you're not paying for anything, you aren't the customer, you're the product" ? . Daytraders and WSBers and other small fish like you and me aren't Robinhood's customers. Robinhood's customers are Citadel and companies like them who pay Robinhood for order flow from the uninformed masses. Keeping that in mind, here is the simple answer to your question:
Rh wants to go public and relies on Citadel. Both major reasons why Rh does the larger funds' bidding. Rh's trading for the people angle is a bunch of BS
I am not an expert on this.. but here is a theory. Broker's are incentivized to have the short squeeze stop.
Someone please correct me if I am (or how I am) wrong with the following:
Bob is a broker.
Jack comes along buys 100 shares of X.
Bob lends those 100 shares of X to Amy to sell short.
Amy sells it short. Price shoots up.. Amy says “oh crap.. Sorry bill. Simply cannot buy back those shares. I am bankrupt. I physically do not have the money to do so.
Jack will still expect Bob the broker to make sure his 100 shares of X are there one way or the other.
Bob the broker has to buy back those shares it lent out to Amy so that Jack the account holder is still able to sell/trade their shares.
>Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)?
Because Robinhood's actual customer is Citadel, not the retail people making the trades.
Citadel gave $2.7BN to Melvin Capital a couple of days ago. It stands to lose that money if Melvin (and Citron etc.) can't fully cover their short positions.
A good way to make the stock price go down and allow Citadel to make money, is for RH to only allow selling and not buying of GME.
I'm going to start spreading this around. It's a comment by someone else who points to an interview of the WeBull CEO and why they had issues. It's pretty clear that this is a process issue, not necessarily a RobinHood is evil issue.
So only big shot hedge funds are allowed to manipulate the market and get away with it? How dare the common man shift the balance of power, that too by playing totally within the rules!?
Seriously, if a fund did this, they'd be patting themselves on the back, and would have had little to no backlash from their brokers.
Many brokers have lent the shares to hedge funds that went short on the stock. Now these hedge funds are on the verge of bankruptcy. If they default the brokers are in a lot of trouble.
why would people use this site? it seems very unreliable, i tried with many attempts last night to signup and all I get are strange errors..why would i want to conduct serious business through them if they can't simply handle signups
Brokers are worried about their legal exposure at this point.
They could face lawsuits from investors in Melvin and other hedge funds, who will allege that the brokers knew they were facilitating intentional financial harm. It doesn’t matter if these are likely to fail; they are expensive lawsuits to defend against and therefore may result in settlements.
And they could face class action litigation from trial lawyers representing retail investors who lose money when the bubble finally bursts. Again, maybe the brokers will win these suits but they are expensive and bad for the brand. “I used Robinhood and lost my life’s savings” is not the news story they want to see 2 months from now. (Edit to clarify: class action litigators have PR strategies to feed these stories to reporters, hoping bad press will convince their target to settle.)
Shouldn't they have an arbitration clause in there somewhere? Maybe that would open them to a Thousand Papercut bleeding when everyone activate the arbitration clause at once.
Class action lawsuits are about people punishing companies because the government won't levy a harsh enough penalty. I never took part in a class action because I wanted "a payday," I take part in them because I want the company punished.
> They could face lawsuits from investors in Melvin and other hedge funds, who will allege that the brokers knew they were facilitating intentional financial harm.
That'd be a gutsy move from a firm that takes a big short position and then publicly bashes a stock.
"Intentional financial harm" is not illegal, otherwise shorting stocks would be illegal. There is also no court precedence for normal market maneuvers that happen to have a significantly negative outlook on a company. Imagine if Gamestop sued TD Ameritrade for facilitating short market orders for Goldman Sachs? It would be a joke. Same thing for if Melvin sues--they over exposed themselves and paid for it.
There's nothing here that's illegal. Insider Trading, Pump and dump schemes, etc all require coordinated distribution or communication of false and/or non-public information. What's happening with GME is happening in the public, in full view of everyone, with a goal of exploiting a hedge fund that overexposed itself through a short squeeze. Short squeezes are legal, and have a large storied history over the last couple decades.
Good point. Hedge funds pay for things that are ostensibly public, but with very high entry points, to understand the market - witness satellite surveilling of Chinese factory activity, Walmart parking lots, laying private fiber.
WSB was the very definition of public information, open social media.
1,739 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 647 ms ] threadI'm all for "let 'em play" in general but this is not going to end well for a lot of folks...
Is it so hard to believe that at this point buying GME is more about activism than making profit?
“When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose”
I think that people should be able to spend their money however they want. I also don't mind when regulators say "liquor stores are blocked from having one-day specials the day that welfare benefits are paid."
If Robinhood believes that their customers are better served by blocking certain transactions, I trust Robinhood to make that call (and suffer the goodwill or ill-will that results).
My investment firm required time to set things up, and it won't be ready in time for this game.
If Robinhood can shut down trades for 24 hours, that's enough to have a huge impact, not just on the market, but on people's individual finances, as they move elsewhere.
Footnote: If I had been successful, I'd be up $200 right now based on the strategy I planned. But I'm not naive enough to think that's anything beyond luck and volatility.
Screenshot lists floating around the internet yesterday pointing out exactly what buttons in your app to hit in order to buy GME options is the first piece of evidence that makes me that thing, perhaps, a large number of people don't know (or understand) what they're actually doing.
I am pretty much in like with the OP in that this is definitely paternalism, and I have no idea if it's good or bad. People were going to get screwed because of this, but I don't think Robinhood or other online trading apps stopped buy's to protect these people.
Go read the top comments in the top WSB threads and tell me which it is.
This is all about getting rich quick with a thin veneer of activism slapped on top.
That might not have been the case a few days ago, I don’t know because I only got into the loop yesterday... but if it was 90% activism on Monday... is probably 10% activism today.
I wouldn’t touch that stock using “for real” money with a 50 foot pole.
No one holding GME is having their holdings seized.
No one holding GME is prevented from selling (by Robinhood; periodic circuit breakers do inject halts for everyone during periods of high volatility/price movement, which are rules set in place before [this] play began)
No one is prevented from opening an account at the many dozen other brokerages who are happy to transact in GME.
And the simple fact that millions of people on RH are locked out of buying totally fucks the people holding the stock. "You can sell but not buy"?
Who is buying? The institutions.
Do not attempt to justify this.
I promise a ton of people are convinced this is their ticket and throwing in far more than play money.
Of course, those retail investors who got in on Thursday, Friday, or Monday; that seemed like a bad purchase. So bad that Melvin double-downed on their naked short position. There's no way the stock could go up. The fundamentals aren't there. But it did. A lot. And those retail investors made a ton of money.
So, we're at today, where you're saying that it would be a bad time to invest because it won't end well. You, and to some degree Robinhood, are making a prediction on the stock market. You may be right; you may be wrong; but you're definitely not certainly right or certainly wrong. You're making the same mistake anyone who tries to pick stocks does; you're just doing it in reverse.
At the same time, parabolic moves like this have never once in the history of markets been sustained over a long period of time. It's possible that this will be the first one ever, but I am indeed making a prediction that it will not be. You are correct that I might be wrong about that.
* - All this assumes that my clearing firm would continue clearing the orders, which is uncertain at the moment. If my clearing firm won't book the orders, I literally can't do anything except cajol, plead, or sue them.
A few that got in early and have liquidated their position made a ton of money.
Those HODLers? They might have paper profits now, but long term not so sure.
this is stock investing 101. don’t invest what you cannot afford to lose. i find it condescending and insulting that they are claiming to protect the users.
And that's really what this is all about.
It doesn't get more obvious than this.
Someone high up at RH got their arm twisted to help their buddies close their shorts.
Sign me up for the class action...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-over...
And we know what happened to DoorDash when they tried to play that game: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-doordash/this-hypocri...
Limiting it so you can't buy, you can only sell... Very clearly helping the hedge funds here.
Elites: better leave some safety valves in the system. People have been getting angry in the last year.
I definitely feel I'm getting squeezed, even though I've increased my salary quite a lot since 2005, including moving continents to pretty good jobs in Europe. I can feel the squeeze in society, with friends that even in a rich nation with a good salary still don't look very brightly into the future. Climate disasters incoming, also propelled up by the elites (or at least delaying action against, inaction is an attack in this case).
People were tired, now a lot are tired, bored, unemployed and angry.
And practically a halt doesn't _really_ affect the prices.
Citadel could also be absolutely fucking themselves if they end up in discovery over this. It could mean the end of this era of funds. Many would be glad to see them go.
On the other side, Robinhood is asking for account to be funded with cash to execute the calls at expiration, or else they will liquidate your position :|
Info: Market was closed so the order wasn’t executed but it was accepted by the order system before i cancelled it.
Tried it twice, did the same thing each time.
Some more info:
https://twitter.com/IBKR/status/1354792600004386818
Even more with some irresponsible newspapers blaming the whole thing on GamerGate and Alt-Right, effectively pushing away people that previously could be on their side.
Brokerages can, and do all the time, set specific margin requirements for volatile securities. There’s no reason they can’t do that here as well. (unless they literally can’t because their tech stack doesn’t support it which would be pretty funny)
Why would anyone use a trading platform that now has a history of picking and choosing what trades you are allowed to make?
This will be very disruptive to Robinhood. I think today they made a poor business decision that will affect their valuation and potentially the company itself.
I don't do much trading on Robinhood, mostly for learning or experimenting with small amounts of money but this move has left a sour taste. I'll be closing my account, while recognizing that other brokerages are doing the same (though not all).
edit
Retail investors are locked out, $GME is still going up. What's the fucking excuse now?
Well, they're gonna lose millions of customers over this I predict. How is that not killing their business?
Some interesting reading:
Professor Walter Scheidel examines the history of peace and economic inequality over the past 10,000 years - https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/24/stanford-historian-unco...
Revolution and the Rebirth of Inequality - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2777764?seq=1
Mike Duncan is an entertainer, not a professional historian.
Police can and will provoke non-violent protests to violence. In a few cases (see the UK's "spycops" scandal) police infiltrators will organise protests so they can arrest dissidents.
Yes when executed by a single coherent entity.
This is not it, unless you believe there is a powerful cabal controlling twitter, facebook, robinhood, discord etc.
They are all doing it independtly to limit the legal and/or financial risks for themselves. Getting people to "strike first" is not the intent, saving $ is the intent here.
Only intent here is ass covering.
There is no intent on the part of the GAFAs to force the lower class into a revolution to get a pretext to squash them or any bigger "art of the war" plan behind those decisions than money.
Assuming no bad intentions doesn’t change the outcome of their actions.
The closest thing to criminal activity we see here is people betting more than a company's stock. When hedge fund managers see this and buy all the stock to squeeze the shorters it's normal. When it's people like you and me they say it is illegal.
No different from somebody on CNBC providing stock picks.
We give that a free pass but suddenly a loosely-organized internet forum is a problem.
1. If Cramer said "Hey, let's all buy this stock because there is a potential short squeeze.", then that would be illegal because it's attempting to create an artificial market pump through short squeezing.
2. Cramer is LICENSED to give investment advice. A licensed doctor can go on TV and make medical recommendations. Reddit specifically bans subs that try to do that.
Read matt levine's twitter: https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1354129838806872073
and newsletter if you want to inform yourself.
And as it turns out, people are very angry about that. And since violence gets you thrown in jail, the next is financial violence in bankrupting these country-destroying fintech scabs.
And look who comes to their rescue, but not for the masses.
Of course, if someone went above that and invested an amount, where losing it would hurt, that's different.
- Rebates from market makers and trading venues
- Robinhood Gold
- Stock loan
- Income generated from cash
- Cash Management
https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/stock-order-rou...
[1] https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersbestexhtm.html
Robinhood publishes their execution numbers (as required by the SEC), along with other brokers. At a quick glance, there is nothing out of the ordinary. It's also worth noting that you cannot directly compare numbers as different platforms have different trading behavior.
https://robinhood.com/us/en/about-us/our-execution-quality/
https://www.schwab.com/execution-quality
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/execution-quality/overview
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-321
In fact, they were still seeking "best" execution; they just didn't beat other brokerages because of high payments for order flow and misled customers about that.)
Legally not, illegally... yes, and try to prove that.
There's Citadel Asset Management, the quant hedge fund (which is probably the one that lent money to Melvin, though I'm not sure about that), and Citadel Securities the HFT / market-making show (they have the same owner).
HFT market-making using retail order flow isn't front-running - the price the customers get is the same regardless ("Best Bid Offer" as brokers are legally required to provide in the US). The difference is, once that the HFT market maker holds the stock, they can get rid of it more easily (i.e. they can close the trade) because (the assumption is that) the retail flow is "noise" (uncorrelated with future price movements) as opposed to professional/institutional traders (e.g. other hedge funds executing their strategies), where a big problem is negative selection (i.e. you're more likely to execute a trade with someone that has better information than you).
For instance the bid side may say
Alice wants to buy 50 shares at $20 (order added at 10:37)
Bob wants to buy 30 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:18)
Citadel wants to buy 35 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:17)
David buy 10 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:01)
The bids are ordered by price, and ties are broken by who placed the order first.
If Evelyn (Robinhood customer) shows up and wants to sell 5 shares at $20, then the exchange will say, oh nice 20 is less than $20.1, lets get some trades going! $20.1 is the highest prices, and of those orders David's were entered first. So Evelyn's sell order is matched with Davids buy order. The price is determined by the order which was in the book. So Evelyn will get a better price than she hoped for!
If Evelyn had requested to sell 100 shares, then she will first sell to David for $20.1, then Citadel's for $20.1, then Bob's for $20.1 and finally some of Alice's shares for $20.
Ok but what happens if Citadel is paying for order flow?? Now the order book (from Evelyn's perspective) looks like
Alice wants to buy 50 shares at $20 (order added at 10:37)
Bob wants to buy 30 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:18)
David buy 10 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:01)
Citadel wants to buy 35 shares at $20.1 (order added at 11:17)
So if Evelyn (Robinhood customer) shows up, and again wants to sell 5 shares at $20, then she will sell to Citadel, even though their order is later than David's.
So to sum it up
Evelyn (Robinhood customer) is unaffected
Citadel wins
David loses.
What's even more concerning to me is that, to platforms looking for an excuse, your comment could be painted as trying to "incite" violence, and used as a justification to ban you.
Given the track record Reddit has of keeling over to public pressure, there is no way they are going to stand up to the SEC.
On one hand, the rise of meme stocks is shining light that one of the central conceits of capitalism is wrong (i.e. that the stock market isn't a good arbiter of the value of companies).
But as a member of the public, I'm concerned about what happens when the meme stocks come crashing back to earth. When that happens institutional investors will overreact, doom and gloom will reign, and CEOs of public companies will use that to lay off people and cut worker benefits.
The common person always loses when bubbles burst.
In a crazy way this is probably saving a lot more jobs than it's jeopardizing.
In this case, it's not really saving any jobs, since GameStop employees (excluding higher ranked employees) probably don't have any part of their compensation that's stock based.
Toys R Us was a leveraged buyout, which is definitely a much more ethically dubious strategy, and that can cause jobs to be lost. This won't cause any jobs at GameStop to be lost, although there probably will be some unhappy traders and people left holding bags of GameStop stock.
Out of curiosity, has that actually happened to a public stock? I'd assume the minority shareholders would have standing for a lawsuit if someone were to do a hostile takeover of a stock and liquidate the assets of the company.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_raid#History
That is a tautology, because you define the "common person" as the person who loses.
I'm sure there were people who made good money in the 2008 housing bubble. Didn't they all live like kings for a while, because they could borrow arbitrary sums against their houses?
Similarly, some people may make good money on that GameStop thing now.
The "common people" who didn't participate in this will probably never even notice. At most they'll notice that their favorite shopping mall is closing, but that is part of a larger trend. And they can now shop on Amazon instead, so their quality of life probably remains the same or gets improved.
The common person is the majority of Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't invest in the market.
Those who don't participate will be negatively impacted if this causes another recession, which is likely as investors get spooked by another bubble burst. Which means standard of living, job benefits, and salaries will continue to stagnate.
This also ignores the fact that we've moved from guaranteed pensions to 401ks, which are heavily dependent on hedge funds. If hedge funds lose their shirts, they'll get a bailout from the government because we didn't learn our lesson about too big to fail last time. Which will mean government austerity in other areas, typically starting in social welfare programs.
The "central conceit" is not that the market is a "good arbiter" of the value of a company. Just that it's the least bad one.
The central conceit of every alternative to capitalism is that there's such a thing as a singular, coherent definition of "the value of a company" and that it's consistently, accurately measurable by some central authority.
Jimmy Cramer pumping stocks every evening to his boomer audience which ultimately has some effects (not sure how much though) on stock prices seems fine but a group of people discussing stocks seems like a threat...
The question is, will the creators of these communities trust cloud providers where the platforms are hosted to not de-platform them, or will we end up with P2P, distributed networks instead?
I want an anti-authoritarian internet. The past year has been surreal.
And it will thrive and will be a better place to make more money that SV for 5-10 years, until it gets censored like any public space.
You will want a data mesh layer that multiple apps run on top of probably.
Network effects drive a lot of adoption of these things, which is a huge headwind against an "explosion" of them lasting that long.
Robinhood doesn't like us? We'll start out own.
Reddit doesn't like us? Let's just kickstart and crowd-source another.
This idea that the common man needs to be protected from himself is paternalistic and condescending. Private equity is the means of collective action and the rich people don't want us to organize without their blessings.
Not enough liquidity. WSB has very little to do with long term investing. It's just about using the stock market as a casino.
Technically the JOBS act is supposed to allow this (crowdfunding). May not be as easy as buying stock but at least it's legal now.
Interesting word choice. Conservative wording of "common man", but liberal wording of "paternalistic". I don't mind the former but I do wonder how a father would be more inclined to protect a child from itself than a mother; if anything, I would find maternalistic a more fitting descriptor.
There's Ruqqus which is already a working alternative to reddit. However, what I found going there is that there are a lot of anti-left memes being shared. Some amount of toxicity. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I wish the platform was a bit less political, a more neutral alternative to reddit... but hey, if enough people leave reddit, maybe it will become just that.
https://ruqqus.com/+Commentary/post/74iv/lol-you-thought-tha...
This is probably because reddit is quite clearly a left-leaning platform. Due to the lack of healthy balance, the refugees from reddit are mostly people who feel their views and voices are being silenced by aggressive moderation. In my opinion this state of affairs is only reddit's fault.
That’s a pretty long-term bet, though, and I don’t think WSB is usually into those.
Then payment processors ban you. Then you start your own visa. Let's start our own visa. Banks ban you. Let's start our own bank. Your hosting service bans you. Host your own. Your ISP bans you. Start your own ISP. Other ISPs don't peer with you. Start your own internet. Then the feds shut down your bank.
The answer to censorship is not "start your own".
By the way, the Reddit WSB "shutdown" was done by mod admins to clean up the page a bit. It was private for an hour or two and back up.
Now I doubt Reddit has huge contracts with the government, but I’m sure the government could find something to harass them with if it wanted to. Drive long enough and a cop will eventually find a reason to pull you over.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-webs...
http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/28/usGovtABigUserOfAmaz...
This chapter in WSB has brought forth substantially better communication with the admins than we'd ever had in the past, including a direct line to Alexis.
Edit:
Thank you all for the outpour of support!
Our main challenges thus far have been technical (hitting API limits, automoderator backlog, etc.) however, those issues have now been resolved and our bots are running better than ever before.
We largely owe our success in handling this to the Reddit engineering team who has routinely stepped up and fixed things. As chaotic as the scene has been for us moderators, I'm sure they have been under much more pressure. If you know a reddit engineer, please give them your thanks as they have done a phenomenal job.
For those curious, the surge in activity broke a number of things. Here are just a few:
> modmail surpassing 80,000+ messages resulting in modmail going down
> constant threads hitting 100,000 comments resulting in slow loading site-wide
> automoderator getting backlogged and taking 30+ minutes to parse comments leading to terrible comments getting through.
All these issues are now resolved, so once again, big thanks to the Reddit engineering team!
To be honest, I think the recent restrictions on trading specific stocks (on Robinhood etc.) is absolutely dumb. Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders. But an amateur mob performing the short squeeze must be stopped at all cost? What bullshit. Either the "casino" should be open to all, or rules that apply to the "amateur mob" should apply to the HFT and derivatives market as well.
Market manipulation. Loosely, market manipulation happens when you artificially influence the price of a stock, resulting in a personal gain. Buying stock with the intention of causing a short squeeze can be interpreted to fit that definition. I believe that WSB is creating artificial demand to try to "screw over" certain institutional investors. I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal interpretation.
> Apparently, the sort of crappy market manipulation that led to the 2008 Volkswagen "short squeeze" or the 2010 "flash crash" is absolutely fine because it was driven by traders.
How were they "absolutely fine?" You do know that regulators attempted to prosecute the traders/executives responsible for the 2008 VW short squeeze [1], and successfully prosecuted a trader for the 2010 flash crash [2]? For the VW short squeeze, regulators were not able to find evidence that the traders involved intended to cause a short squeeze or engaged in any artificial demand; they actually demanded the stock because they sought to take over VW. This is also evidenced by the fact the Porsche sold stock on the open market once they released that a squeeze was happening [3].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/ad782326-ed02-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/0a58b63a-4294-3e07-8390-c3aabef39...
Every purchase influences the market, and results in gain, otherwise people would not be buying, and selling things.
Every purchase, is a market manipulation by the definition.
Well, I don't think this would hold up in court. Both the SEC and courts have made a distinction in the past between "real demand" (i.e. demand motivated because you think the stock is undervalued) and "artificial demand" (i.e. demand that is not based on any underlying analysis, but instead motivated because you intend to trigger other market mechanisms, including coverings of short positions). Like most legal definitions, the actual definition is hazy, and courts may have established legal tests. Read Matt Levine for a nuanced analysis [1].
Again, not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-w...
They should not be.
These guys have full understanding how laughable it the attempt to judge somebody by pretending the judge/bureaucrat can peer into somebody's mind, and yet they do it.
But historical cases don't peer into people's minds. They look at evidence, such as texts in chat rooms that show clear intent to manipulate. See the Libor scandal chats [1], where one trader wrote "its just amazing how libor fixing can make you that much money" and "its a cartel now in london."
I think it's unlikely that the SEC will be able to successfully prosecute WSB traders, though, due to lack of evidence. It's also probably not even worth their time.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/why-bank...
Bill Ackman went on CNBC last year in near tears saying the end was coming, helping stocks continue their nose dive...all the while he was buying tons and tons of stocks which he turned into billions. How is that allowed but people on a message board sharing positions and high number of short floats isn't? There is literally, and has been for a long time, a website that tells you the short interest in a stock. It's sole purpose is to help people find short squeezes. That's why you have stats like "days to cover."
It shouldn't be allowed without proper disclosure on their actual positions. The SEC has prosecuted people in the past for making public statements while taking the other direction without proper disclosure.
I believe that this should be investigated by the SEC, but it likely may not since, at the direction of the Trump administration, the SEC has instead focused their efforts on other financial crimes.
There a difference between "This stock is going down. (I buy long because I know something I'm not saying)" and "This stock is going down. (I buy short because I believe what I say)"
This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
If the SEC doesn't like this, they should fix the underlying market structure that makes this action possible. Effectively: what allows the traders to create leverage by abusing / forcing brokers to take specific actions.
Or just give up and accept that by digitizing markets we're past the rubicon to smart trading and predatory pack algorithms being successful.
> This is essentially Reddit saying "This stock is going up, so buy options to exacerbate that and to profit." No misrepresentation.
I see threads where WSB is saying "This stock is going up, and if we make it go up more, hedge funds & market makers will have to buy more stock to cover their short positions, and therefore it will go up even further [and we will make more money]." That's the manipulative part — creating artificial prices to induce even more demand.
Is it manipulation if you're so predictable that an action by me causes you to always act a certain way? And I profit when you take that action?
If hedge funds refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no? Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
It depends, but approximately, yes if there was any intent to exploit that fact. See spoofing, other prosecutions for creating short squeezes, etc.
https://dealbreaker.com/2012/06/phil-falcones-alleged-piggis...
The rationale is that markets are better for participants when their prices are accurate and reflect true supply and demand. Price manipulation subverts that, so the SEC disallows it (except in some cases where manipulation is explicitly allowed for historical reasons).
> refused to cover their shorts (I'm probably using the wrong terminology) and left them open, this wouldn't be an issue, no?
This is imprecise; hedge funds might cover short positions to hedge further losses, or because their prime broker might require them to maintain a certain margin (to reduce counterparty risk). I have no experience in institutional investing, so that's a guess.
> Or, conversely, if market makers refused to sell options on overly volatile stocks / stocks being manipulated?
Market makers will increase a premium for options on "overly volatile stocks." If the risk is too high, then they may stop selling the options altogether. But the problem is — it's difficult to predict which next stock WSB might start manipulating. That's another issue. If regulatory agencies don't step in and prevent this type of manipulation, the premiums on all retail-adjacent options will be higher because of the increased risk and fear that a capricious WSB crowd might turn on a MM. That's bad for people who use options "correctly" — not for gambling, but as a way to hedge and reduce risk.
It's called activist investing. His fund did not buy stocks, but bought Credit Default Swaps to the tune of $27 million USD. In the event that the markets dropped, they were awarded massive gains if they exit position. They gained $1.3 billion.
Prior to exiting the position which was publicly released, he went on media outlets and promoted the idea of shutting down the economy. This is what activist investors do. They actively spread rumors that will help their positions.
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2020/03/26122842/P...
I'd be really interested in learning more about the Olympic level mental gymnastics one has to go through to write this off as O.K. but then turn around and say that a bunch of random people on an open public forum saying to buy an over-shorted stock is market manipulation. They don't even have the purchasing power to make a difference here.
Again, I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not a legal interpretation or legal advice; just my personal opinion.
Motivation and intent are the main factors in determining manipulation. So there are two cases:
1. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they believe that a short squeeze may be incoming soon.
2. A trader buys stock, seeking to profit, because they intend to drive the stock price up, thereby causing a short squeeze.
(1) is legal (in my understanding; see the disclaimers above). (2) is not. They differ in their intents. The first one is "legitimate" demand, the second is "artificial."
Now, it's difficult to prove intent in court. And clearly, many people in WSB legitimately are buying the stock because of (1). But there are some who are doing (2). They have plausible deniability, though, and that's why it's unlikely that anyone in WSB will be successfully prosecuted without more concrete evidence.
> The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security".
It is my opinion that this demand is not artificial, it is genuine, although caused by factors other than the inherent value of the stock itself.
If this is considered to be 'creating an artificial price', I don't see how a position where 140% of the shares of a company are shorted could not be, meaning significantly wider implications than just a single subreddit.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/683/usa-is-i-am-not-...
Also, are you a lawyer, and is that legal advice? :)
There are no repurcussions for not having that antiquated disclaimer. Which wouldn't hold up even if there was some magic that allowed a case to be brought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Most likely this will be like accessibility to poker online and in casinos which don't profit off the game directly interestingly in the 2000s. A lot of people got involved. A few made a lot of money and the rest went to do other things after a while.
And I did, because I'm a registered investor. But this isn't available to most people, only the top 10%.
I'm not sure I'd call it keeling over to "public" pressure.
Furthermore, this comment is offensive. Let's please not pretend that Facebook and Twitter were "looking for an excuse" before deplatforming Trump. They were entirely justified and would have been justified in doing so many years before they eventually did so.
Let's also not put the word "incite" in dick quotes barely three weeks after an insurrection and attempted coup. There was actual incitement of violence in that case.
Why exactly, again?
No, that doesn't follow.
Very similar to 9/11 except less casualties thankfully. Just an interesting observation of how much control screens can exert then vs now. More are connected with constant access. We need better screen diets.
Or this one: BLM hasn't caused any deaths, to date; the Capitol (capitalized, btw, and with an "o") insurrection caused 5 and could easily have resulted in the assassination of various senior government officials.
Or this one: BLM protests involved tens of millions of citizens across all walks of life and were prompted by very real social problems with police murdering black people; the Capitol riot was prompted by fascism and white supremacy.
Do I need to go on?
Isn’t declaring part of the sovereign territory of the United States to be an autonomous zone sort of similar?
If you're proud to be a fascist and white supremacist then this doesn't make someone not want to be one. If you're not then you'd be offended by that accusation that you are one. It's a polarising statement that target's an individual's identity, not their actions. It was an ad hominem attack.
Had you made reference to the disinformation campaign surrounding the election results or the President's remarks that actively fanned the flames of their outrage (outrage that they certainly perceived as legitimate but the rest of us know was misguided) then that would be a very different argument. It would be one that forgave regular people for being people and targeted those truly responsible. It's an argument that invites people to agree with you rather than making them the enemy.
You're claiming BLM is about murdering black kids? Are you serious?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/atlanta-mayor-8-year-o...
As someone who considered himself to be on the right until relatively recently, I'm pretty disturbed by how it seems to have rejected reason in favor of sloppy free association.
> The capital riots were patriots who have been upset that the corrupt courts refused to allow anybody to present evidence of fraud when there is more than enough out there to show
The allegations of fraud were laughed out of court, even by Republican judges, because they had no merit whatsoever. They were little more than expressions of an incompetent demagogue's psychological insecurity.
Your statement is dense with issues:
1. You're comparing a single "protest" to a protest movement. Also, where did you get a figure like "12-19"?
2. There are documented and confirmed cases of capitol-riot-type people using the BLM protests as cover for violence (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...). The attempts to blame the capital riots on "antifa" are groundless.
3. The capitol rioters deliberately struck at the democratic process itself (e.g. process of conducting a fair election) because they rejected the results of that process, which is a far more serious thing than any traditional protest, no matter how violent.
2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
No, there wasn't just a single incident. Just to give some examples off the top of my head: large groups of III%ers participated in both the Capitol Attack and Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the BLM counter-protests were arguably part of the same phenomenon (and one of them shot three people in Kenosha).
> 2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
That's a sloppy reading of what I said. I merely pointed out a fact that makes attribution of violence that occurred at the protests difficult.
> 3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
It's pretty obvious that it wasn't an "attack on democracy" because they made reform demands to elected officials and were cooperating with the government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/seattle-autonomous-zon...
> The protest zone has increasingly functioned with the tacit blessing of the city. Harold Scoggins, the fire chief, was there on Wednesday, chatting with protesters, helping set up a call with the Police Department and making sure the area had portable toilets and sanitation services....
> The demonstrators have also been trying to figure it out, with various factions voicing different priorities. A list of three demands was posted prominently on a wall: one, defund the Police Department; two, fund community health; and three, drop all criminal charges against protesters.
In comparison, the capitol attackers setup a gallows and were chanting things like "Hang Mike Pence," because he wouldn't unconstitutionally override the election (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi..., https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/mike-pence-cl...). The sloppy false equivalences to deflect away from that are getting old.
2) In the same vein, there seems to be only one actual victim of protester violence at the capitol, and that one also looks more like an accident (got hit in the head with a thrown item, which is of course a stupidly dangerous attack, but also common at BLM riots)
3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
Also, there are videos from the capitol of security staff chatting with the protesters. So I guess they were also cooperating, and hence, by your logic, democratic.
Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
We'll see about that when he goes to trial.
> And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims.
Which is what you're doing. Why arbitrarily lump together BLM and looters, when it could make more sense to consider them different groups that happen to be in the same area reacting in their own ways to the same circumstances?
> 3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
The point is it's not a succession if you continue to recognize the government by calling on it to reform.
> Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
Yep.
Lee Keltner
Aaron "Jay" Danielson
Garret Foster
Tyler Gerth
David Dorn
Victor Cazares Jr
Secoriea Turner
....
And that's just a small sampling.
Do I need to go on?
Lee Keltner - Killed in Denver by the hired security guard for a journalist.
Aaron Danielson - Killed at dueling protests by self identifying anti-facist (antifa)
Garret Foster - He was a BLM protestor killed by an active Army sergeant.
Tyler Gerth- he was a protest photographer killed by a guy with a grudge over an argument.
David Dorn - Not killed by BLM The protests were several miles away and had disbanded a few hours earlier near the Metropolitan Police Headquarters downtown after clashes between police and a few remaining agitators turned violent
Do I really have to go on?
You make it sound like those on your list were killed BLM mobs and a modicum of investigation makes it obvious you lack perspective. Those that marched on the Capitol were indeed a mob.
When: 2 people died as a result of strokes. No participation in the riot.
1 person trampled by the rioters. 1 unarmed person shot by the police. 1 police officer dead due to being struck in the head.
So clearly, only 2 people died as a consequence of the riots, per your logic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
CHAZ was even one step further.
In Atlanta BLM protestors set up an armed road block. Several people were shot there culminating in the shooting death of a 9 year old girl.
Exactly. Has everyone forgotten whitehouse.com? In the 90s it was a porn site.
Follow the money stream.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/us/politics/george-soros-...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/06/the-george-soro...
And antifa is an idea, not a singular, cohesive group. So if you weren't talking about antifa as an idea (which isn't uniquely American), what are you talking about? The made-up-by-right-wing-news organized leftist group that doesn't exist?
Further, if you were an informed American, I'd hope that you would understand that those who tend to identify with antifa weren't (and by and large aren't) happy with the selection of Biden and Harris. Both are seen as defenders of the prison industrial complex.
Name one that is politically active, other than Peter Thiel.
>> And antifa is an idea, not a singular, cohesive group.
Citation needed.
>>The made-up-by-right-wing-news organized leftist group that..
..rioted non-stop for about nine months all across America and killed 25 people.
Fixed it for you.
>> Further, if you were an informed American, I'd hope that you would understand that those who tend to identify with antifa weren't (and by and large aren't) happy with the selection of Biden and Harris. Both are seen as defenders of the prison industrial complex.
Well, they might not like them too much, but Biden is an empty suit and there is always the prospect of The Squad getting more power in the DNC. And they absolutely hated Trump.
Edit: just gathered from reading your comment history that you are Norwegian (something I like to do when people reply to me). What experiences have you had with Americans and 'antifa' groups in America?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23
Calm down, Bud.
I appreciate your clarification, however. I withdraw my assertion that you were trying to minimize what happened on January 6th. And I apologize.
I was going to say "Calm down, Francis," as per the old movie Stripes, and then changed it, but neither would have been helpful. I apologize too.
That's bullshit.
The principle, and thus the the right to free speech is the fundamental value of a free country. Hiding behind the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" is nonsense when the vast majority of communication flows through them.
I'm wondering though what happens if section 230 was modified to only allow for filtering and removal of spam (I'm expecting wiggle here in how it's abused) and illegal content.
Look at Visa going after porn and private sex work.
This entire culture of trying to control what others can say via deplatformization is neoliberal fascism.
Bad things get said. But free speech protects all of us from tyranny, and we have to defend it. Because they'll come after you and your ideas next.
Americans have thick skin, or at least most of us do. It's a consequence of our liberty, and it's a defining trait of our system.
If you leave the responsibility of Free Speech to the Free Market then you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.
That's how things have traditionally been in the US, is it not? As far as I know there was never any law that would force me to allow someone else to use my (literal) printing press.
The exception is the FCC fairness doctrine, but the basis for that was that the "printing press" (RF allocations) is actually a common good, and was only granted to private interests in exchange for certain concessions.
The hard part is getting that corp to own anything of value, since it starts with just the money you put in. But this is still a viable path to wealth for people with time horizons measured in years rather than days. (And all the people who want immediate gratification provides a fairly large market to trade with.)
E.g: I run a stock newsletter. I hire a boxer, Evander Tyson, to hype a biotech penny stock, Scampill Co.. Tyson says to his followers and to my newsletter subscribers that Scampill is about to get a drug approved by the FDA that will cure cancer. I and my friends at Scampill make sure that the patsies have enough stock to buy when I put out my first email blast. When the stock goes up 900% we sell our shares. At that point there are no more large lots on the market, the spreads widen, and the price collapse occurs.
The SEC then sends their feds after me, the boxer I hired, and my friends, the insiders at Scampill. If they can catch me, I do some time in club Fed and have to pay some fines.
In this instance, there is no insider collusion, there is no single promoter with an interest, and there is no commonality to build a class among the redditors etc. who participated in the manipulation. You have a mixture of people who may have said illegal things and people who had totally licit (in the eyes of the law) motivations and actions. You have a big mixture there of mens rae and its absence and a big mixture of types of actus reus and the lack thereof. It is a big mess as compared to making a case against the typical P&D mob scheme.
Yet, you have an outcome that is somewhat similar to a classic P&D, and on a regulated marketplace, whereas most P&Ds happen on less regulated over the counter markets.
They're using the "terrorist" word already in many cases.
I am genuinely interested in the physicality of how that would play out. A mob with pitchforks makes a run at a Facebook HQ. Do they kidnap employees until they find one with the access to re-initialize the account? I guess they would have to keep the hostages forever, else the accounts be disabled again the next day. Do they setup a camp outside with the declared intent to launch an attack should certain accounts not get enough likes? How long could that last? Or do they break into a datacenter and attempt to do it themselves? I'm reminded of that iMac scene in Zoolander.
― Warren Buffett
What?
It doesn't really anymore, but it's an understandable mistake imo
it signifies a small loss of financial liberty and flexibility on behalf of the citizenry, which is enough to spark upset.
meanwhile large groups are allowed to systematically abuse in-place systems in a semi-visible public fashion without backlash or repercussion from regulators in most cases, exacerbating the perceived difference between 'Us and Them', fueling outrage and divide even further.
It's easy to consider why this might upset people.
Do you honestly believe this? Somehow we'll go from not being able to buy certain stocks to violence?
Banning collecting rain water on your own property didn't do it. Abject failure of politicians keeping drinking water clean didn't do it? Not being able to buy cheese from unpasteurized milk didn't do it. Can't grow a plant in your own backyard for personal consumption. But this is it, this is the impetuous. Not being able to buy GME stock.
Let's be real. This is small potatoes.
A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”.
History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Then it was misinterpreted in Wickard to permit nearly limitless power to Congress.
So yes, in a new Constitution we would want a commerce clause, and we would want it never to be interpreted in such a manner.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
"What. the fuck. are you talking about?!"
Tesla's price-to-earnings ratio is 1660.
Why didn't TSLA buying get shut down? OH yeah, because a shitload of institutional investors have shares.
Hedge funds have treated the stock market like their own personal casino for decades. When the house starts to lose at their own game, due to their own greed, it's suddenly a problem?
Don't know what you're on about the house losing here. Brokers make a killing on any trade action. Heavy retail day trading inevitably falters and ends up creating tons of poor while money flows into the pockets of a few. See: the year 2000.
Bending the knee is not right, there must be some sanity in the market. They're trying to protect mom and dad from losing their shirts.
I'm happy to change my phrase, what would you call it when brokerages unilaterally help their market makers by changing trading terms to ones that favor one side. Halting trading is usually done by an exchange.
> Market makers have no interest in owning the stock. They have no interest in being long or short. They're like a furniture or electronics store. They match buyers and sellers, and for this, they make a slim profit margin. This profit margin is known as the spread. The reason they make a profit is because risk is involved. If they sell stock to you, but the price is so volatile that it moves up and up before they can find a buyer and equal out their book, they can lose a lot of money, and they can lose it fast.
> This is why discount brokers (Robinhood, Cashapp, Webull, etc...) have stopped allowing people to buy GME, and AMC, among others. They can't find a market maker to take your order. It sucks because retail made a lot of dumb moves, and bought a lot of shares they shouldn't have bought, and they're going to lose a ton of money, but it's not a conspiracy. [1]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/l6qhhg/discussi...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/l7bo3r/the_game...
Short selling absolutely is a zero sum game.
https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-ill...
Is it no longer rainwater if it touches a ditch? Maybe it's no longer rainwater if it touches a barrel. "Haha no States have laws against harvesting rainwater, only barrel water, you fools!"
* Increasing wealth inequality for several decades now
* older generations holding onto more wealth and power in society than ever before - with a large share of their wealth in the stock market
* Wall Street is seen as entirely unaccountable due to 2008 bailout
* Pandemic this year has basically been a huge wealth transfer from normal people and small businesses towards large conglomerates and the wall street hedge funds who back them
* Institutional trust is at historic lows, while online spaces become more and more regulated by those same institutions
So maybe GME stock is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but it seems like all of this has to reach a boiling point eventually. I'm not sure what that will look like, but violence wouldn't be surprising.
Everything I’ve seen from how the media covers it to how our financial institutions are forming ranks to condemn retail investors sickens me. It’s making obvious the informal lines of control the investor class use to maintain their wealth and their anger to have the average person attempting to play their game.
It’s like a giant metaphor for how screwed up our society has become.
We're pretty much there. Just try driving through the Midwest, or West in areas not subsumed by the mega-cities. It's sad.
I'm pretty lucky, I happened to like computers and got into a field that pays decently well for now. I have no illusions that that I'm not working class though. I watched my parents nearly get crushed in 07/08. I graduated into a economic war zone. Watching the banks get bailed out as I went to parties hosted by kids whose parents were losing the house. Seeing the kids who used to live in the house encourage everyone to punch holes in the drywall because fuck the bank.
I haven't forgotten what Wall Street did to us. The wealth inequality in this country is insane. The elites have been treating the working class like dirt for decades now.
With that context... those CNBC clips made me livid. Fuck the Wall Street propaganda. I'll chip in my little piece if there's a remote chance of taking down one or two of the vultures who are destroying this country with their greed. Much of the finance class that runs this country builds nothing, provides nothing, and tears down communities so they can shake a few coins out of the wreckage.
In talking with my friends who voted for Trump, this is the first time I've been able to feel on the page as them in a long time. There is class rage at play here. People are sick of this system.
When it gets to that, it seems to me that there's some serious anger built up.
> Increasing wealth inequality for several decades now
TV talking heads bemoan about this, but billionaires still remain the most admired people in this country (Trump, Musk, Gates, etc).
> older generations holding onto more wealth and power in society than ever before - with a large share of their wealth in the stock market
If there was anger at the older generation, we wouldn't have so many sacred cows regarding older people (social security and medicare). Average age of senator and house member has been growing over time. Hell, we just elected a 78 year old as president. How about before the revolution we just start with voting for younger people
> Wall Street is seen as entirely unaccountable due to 2008 bailout
Most people don't remember this. I'm surprised how rarely its actually discussed
> Pandemic this year has basically been a huge wealth transfer from normal people and small businesses towards large conglomerates and the wall street hedge funds who back them
This is mostly true but people don't see it that way. They're too busy yelling at people that refuse to wear masks or people that are forcing others to wear masks.
> Institutional trust is at historic lows, while online spaces become more and more regulated by those same institutions
Again, we elected a 40+ year veteran politician. House and Senate re-election rates are still 85%+ and we're ceding ever more of our authority to the [health] experts.
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/01/yes-c...
Okay, now include Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers :)
But in all serious, I'm not talking about anecdotal "admiration" of billionaires. I'm talking about literal wealth gaps[1]. The Bottom 50% of the US held 21% of the wealth in 1970, and the Top 1% held 11% of the wealth. 21% to 11%. By 2014 this had changed to 13% to 20%. Meaning the top 1% doubled its share of the wealth while the bottom 50% lost 38% of its share of the national wealth.
> If there was anger at the older generation, we wouldn't have so many sacred cows regarding older people (social security and medicare). Average age of senator and house member has been growing over time. Hell, we just elected a 78 year old as president. How about before the revolution we just start with voting for younger people
There is massive systemic momentum keeping these programs in place untouched as they are because of gridlock in the national government, I'm not really sure how their existence supports or rejects my point. I agree younger people need to be more active in the voting process and to elect younger people. I'm optimistic about several state-level voting reforms gaining momentum in the coming years to help this.
But at least at the presidential level, our arcane primary/caucus and electoral college systems give a huge advantage to older people living in rural areas. There has been increasing consolidation of young voters in urban areas which are severely under-represented in choosing the president.
And of course campaigns are financed by large wealthy interests that are mostly controlled by older generation who have an incentive to maintain the status quo. As long as we don't have congressional term limits, poor campaign finance regulation, and a massively gridlocked Congress, it's difficult for the state of things to change from what we have, which is domination by those lobbyists and a federal government which doesn't accurately reflect its populace.
> Most people don't remember this. I'm surprised how rarely its actually discussed
What is your definition of Most People? This comes up every time I've ever seen wealth inequality, accountability and government bailouts discussed (A lot in 2020, naturally).
> This is mostly true but people don't see it that way. They're too busy yelling at people that refuse to wear masks or people that are forcing others to wear masks.
It's concretely felt among those who have lost money, jobs and opportunities. Twitter arguments about masks can be present at the same time as the literal felt effect. Anyone who has followed economic news this year has seen the repercussions even if they weren't directly impacted. In my opinion you're underestimating the mood on this, but I'd like to see some data on it.
> Again, we elected a 40+ year veteran politician. House and Senate re-election rates are still 85%+ and we're ceding ever more of our authority to the [health] experts.
I already talked about federal government above^ But I think this has actually been an incredibly interesting year in that divergence from health experts became "mainstream". Tons of people getting Covid news from people on Twitter who called out studies being used by mainstream press and national governments to justify their policy decisions. I can point out a dozen random people on twitter who I trust more than NYT or Dr. Fauci to give me relevant, contextualized analysis of different COVID-19 strategies around the world. And most importantly, there's little social risk to this. I can tell that to people and they don't think I'm a quack. Half of them do are doing the same thing. Additionally, you're seeing protests break out across the world as governments try to lock-down and re-lock-down without legitimately st...
Do you have a reference for older people having more wealth? There's definitely a smaller number of people holding more wealth, but I haven't read about older people holding more wealth.
Saying that there's wealth deficit for millennials/genx because boomers have accumulated more wealth later in life is a little handy-wavy.
What did the boomer chart look like when they were 20-35? What will the genx chart look like when they're 50-70? And what will the millennial chart look like when they're 30-70?
Edit - 70+ for everyone would be good too.
That's not what the chart I linked is claiming. The Boomer line goes back to when they were 35. Not sure what the data limitations were preventing it from going back further. Meanwhile all age data is shown for Gen X.
I'm not sure what you mean about the future chart? I guess we'll have to wait and see :-)
But anyway, this chart appears to answer the question: "which generation had more relative wealth in its early 30s?"
Leaving out boomer data from ~18-35 makes me a little more suspicious of cherry picking because that data could be similar. It may also show boomers gaining even more wealth, but if it's not available we can't know.
What does that refer to?
As of now, I believe the last explicit ban on that was repealed decades ago.
When buying property, you may have agreed that you were not acquiring mineral rights, water rights, etc. and you still might have problems even in the absence of a government rule against it. I don't know how legitimate such claims are or how often they're successful, but I know someone who got legal nasty-grams from a land developer for doing it, and the property owner backed off when they saw the papers they had signed again.
Also, I don't think most of them were bans. I think they usually just limited the extent of it. Some barrels collecting from the downspouts from your roof--fine. Building a huge reservoir filled by rain--not fine.
And they haven't been all repealed. A few states still have restrictions, such as freely allowing collecting anything that falls on the roofs of your buildings as long as the building weren't specifically to collect rainwater but requiring approval for anything else.
It's a fun show regardless.
Do you know how the Arab Spring started? A municipal official bullied a street vendor who was selling produce from a cart roadside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Events_leading_up_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi
"I believe we are on the brink of a terrible civil war (as I described in The Changing World Order series), where we are at an inflection point between entering a type of hell of fighting or pulling back to work together for peace and prosperity..."
https://twitter.com/RayDalio/status/1353408208082112512
[1]https://mwrd.org/rain-barrels
It isn't simply that people can't buy certain stocks. Its an accumulation of events that increasingly lead people to believe that the system is rigged against them. This extends back decades. You have to have been living under a rock to have missed the rising tide of populist sentiment over the last decade, as seen in the pro-Trump anti-establishment contingent on the right, and the explosion of pro-socialist sentiment on the far left.
This Gamestop business probably amounts to a large bucketful of water, but at a certain point, a single drop causes the dam to burst. Kicking the can down the road by saying "surely people won't resort to violence over this" all but ensures that eventually, people will.
Please read this whole thread (https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6omry/an_o...)
This isn't about buying stock any more. This has become a battleground. The people in this thread are normal people fighting back for the first time in their lives.
We are near levels of inequality that caused the French Revolution to go violent.
KYC is fine if you are a multi-millionaire. You just delegate your lawyers and army of accountants to do it. But if you are a small man/company, it's a headache that can drive you out of business.
This financial restrictions has to be stopped. Financial freedom is more important than Freedom of expression.
The fenomenon is global by the way, but it still has been dominated by classic political tags on the media, like alt-right vs commie etc. A very few polititians broke that pattern the last 5 years or so, won'tt give any names, because all that labels I mentioned,
Agree. It is not like there aren't half a dozen apps that let you trade stocks commission free on your phone. Some may require you to have $500-$1k to invest, but seriously if you don't have that you should invest in a different way then treading individual stocks.
That said, I have no idea why Robin Hood should ban the trading of GME and I wish they wouldn't.
Also this isn't people 'asserting themselves financially', this is people mug punting on a stock that wealthier and more financially savvy people who got in early are happy to unload their stock to. There will end up being people quite relieved they didn't get to execute their plan to put their life savings into peak-price Gamestop.
I wonder how big the intersection is between people saying this now and people who said that the Black Lives Matter protests were violent (when they largely weren't).
> there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too
It's not the same people. I keep seeing efforts to compare the deplatforming of violent and radical white supremacists that were using platforms to coordinate a coup to whatever other unpopular thing is happening today. I suspect that's an attempt to cultivate a little sympathy for people who have none for others.
Yes, large investment firms appear to be circling their wagons now and making moves through media partners and others to try to stop the bleeding. That's an entertaining enough event all on its own, it doesn't need specious comparisons to other recent events.
Best part? They are not even hiding it. Everyone can see the message.
A clever way to create a situation to pass mass gun control and limit those pesky civil liberties, no?
We usually don't see distributed market manipulation like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a shitton of people buying GameStop to squeeze a short-seller breaks securities law. Does it feel good to get one up on a hedge fund idiot that was trying to manipulate GameStop the other way? Yes - but this is, at best, financial vigilantism.
This is text-book illegal activity.
There is no logical derivation of GameStop's financial books that would warrant the kind of stock price it has.
It is very very clearly market manipulation, and these exact sorts of manipulations are commonly prosecuted.
If only value investing was legal, the stock market look and operate very differently to today.
Edited to add: ultimately the law should be there to prevent fraud, not to restrict capital ownership and financial autonomy to a handful of cronies. You know, what they call a free market.
Incidentally, if this had been a properly regulated market to begin with, the price inflation would not have been possible.
I think it's very risky for the investors but I don't know whether the SEC has stuff that would cover this.
And even if there were a law, if you somehow have your thumb on the social media hype button then how would you enforce that law? Makes me think nothing unruly is going on, just a bubble that will inevitably collapse and make Musk etc. rich once more just like during the dot com era. Some people only know how to make money through theft and I'm not surprised we've found ourselves here after the last 4 years.
If i tell you GME has a new product line that will increase their wealth 10x - that seems like manipulation. If i say to you i'm buying GME and you should too, with clear disclaimers that this isn't financial advice but rather a meme - i don't think i manipulated you.
By "normal" definition manipulation requires some about of deception/etc. I don't think "anyone" (within obvious reason) is being manipulated here. It's very clear what the community is buying into.
So i come back to what "manipulation" is defined as in the stock sense. Is it meaningfully different?
Is it? If I have the money to put a short squeeze on someone by myself, with my own money, is that illegal? Isn't that what some people do all the time with smaller numbers?
(honestly asking)
Pump and Dump schemes have been illegal forever. This is no different.
Furthermore, if you're arguing that it's illegal because it's done in group, then I don't understand what legal basis you are using for that. I also don't understand why you'd say it's "very different" from doing it on your own. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that legal to do on your own, but illegal in group (some things are more illegal in a group, but that's not what we're talking about)
Hedge funds are so used to being the only tool on the block, they overextended, and for the first(?) time the retail side is fighting back.
The professional investing world have so many advantages over main street that it's not even funny. They've got everything from frontrunning, colocation, free money, and leverage(10x), 'unsophisticated' investors only can dream of this. And when they do go belly up, tax payers bail them out, meanwhile the bonus machine keeps churning.
But it is funny and good when main street actually catches them with their hand in the cookie jar.
How is this different from Bill Ackmans attack on Herbal life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQc6L4ieMwo
How is this different from all the FUD Tesla has gotten over the years? Which CNBC has happily broadcast for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-YgFDAroeI
That was shorting. That is LEGAL.
> How is this different from all the FUD Tesla has gotten over the years?
Tesla was specifically investigated by the SEC when it tried to push short sellers out - and they paid an undisclosed fine for that ILLEGAL activity.
Is there a requirement for stock prices to be logical? Wouldn't that would ban all sorts of hft trades?
Why is one okay but not the other? Right because rich people with connections are the ones being burnt right now.
In other words, the capital firm that got short-squeezed by the idiots at /r/WSB were also doing something illegal. It's not the case that the short is legal but the longs aren't. Alternatively, if the argument is that /r/WSB isn't market-manipulating, they just think the stock is undervalued, then the hedge fund can use the same argument. "We think this stock is overvalued so we shorted it" is how they'll explain it to the SEC.
And that's not an invalid position: GME has been suspiciously overvalued way before any of the parties involved started holding positions. It's a retail-heavy business in pandemic season with multiple year-over-year same-store sales cuts. What that means is that, for each one of their stores, on average, they sold 30% less product in Q3 2020 than they did in Q3 2019. And even if you think, "oh, that's just the COVID economy, they'll be back"; Q3 2019 sales were already 20% down from the year before. This is a company nobody wanted to buy games from even before a novel coronavirus decided to close a good chunk of their stores.
The fun fact about that above explanation is that it provides plausible deniability for someone trying to juice the market in a particular direction. Hell, if /r/WSB hadn't caught the hedge fund with their pants down, they probably would have gotten off scot-free. However, the financial vigilantes dumping fat stacks into GME don't have the same kind of excuse - they explicitly coordinated in public fora to manipulate stock price, so it's an easy target for an SEC that really doesn't get the budget necessary to prosecute the complex kinds of financial crimes they're tasked with.
So, from a legal perspective, both parties are in the wrong. From an enforcement perspective, /r/WSB is a soft target.
On top of that, you have the beginnings of a takeover by a successful e-commerce CEO and potential for real turnaround.
That would have been enough on its own for WSB longs to jump in, but then the hedge funds shorted over 100% of the stock making it the perfect powder keg for this explosion.
What can be market manipulation is to collude with others to move a stock price not because you believe it is worth a different amount, but because you predict others will react to the movement you create. That applies to collusion involving shorts (bear raids) too. Proving the collusion and the artificial price bit is the difficult bit
Hedge funds do this to each other every day. Why is it suddenly wrong when it’s retail investors on the other side of the trade?
I truly do not understand the naïveté of arguments like these. Only the wealthy should be allowed to game the price of assets and rip each other off?
Do you have a source for this?
For eg, here’s an insane one from last fall on negative oil futures:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-04/some-p...
(this is why you might want to... hedge your shorts.)
I agree it's somewhat suspicious if it happens all the time, like this has happened enough times why haven't you designed your infrastructure to handle surges more gracefully, but for the most part I think it's legit.
If we assume intentional malice every time a website goes down, that's a dangerous precedent for the tech industry.
The corporations I've worked for had nothing to do with finances but managed to have several major outages I've sat in on that have lasted as little as 2 hours and as much as 48 hours. They were pretty much always network or server related, sometimes unrelated to the business entirely (a T1 line got cut accidentally by the city in one case).
Those corporations didn't want to go down, and often lost some serious money as a result. I imagine Coinbase loses out on a good amount of money every time they go down as well.
I also expect it's at least somewhat overreported or only a partial outage as well. One person has an issue and announces it and everyone just repeats it without checking themselves. There was at least two instances when I saw people say Coinbase was down and I tried logging in myself and had no issues.
Don't compare deplatforming and this.
Deplatforming is akin to throwing a customer out of the grocery store for doing nazi salutes in the vegetable aisle.
What Robinhood is doing is akin to throwing a customer out of the grocery store because you don't agree with his choice of vegetables.
> throwing a customer out of the grocery store because you don't agree with his choice of vegetables.
There, fixed for you.
There are millions of users of this app, and it’s easy enough to verify - why the skepticism?
I have little doubt that it's happening, but the twitter link was not substantive in comparison to:
https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-...
Over the last 8-10 years online activism/mobs have increasingly been co-opted by those in power as a means of astroturfing. I think it is totally fair to be skeptical and ask whether that is going on here.
One thing is for sure. Even if this is organic, it won’t be next time. After seeing this why wouldn’t some hedge fund orchestrate something like this to manipulate the market?
But it would be a mistake to not think that some hedge fund manager, oligarch, etc. somewhere is paying attention and thinking about how they might be able to co-opt.
Listed companies want nothing to do with this.
Restaurants like customers, but imagine a stampede of 1000 people rushing through the doors, it's not what they want.
The populism here is getting ridiculous, I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on.
Given that a lot of people egging the plebes absolutely 'know better' you have to wonder what their motivations are.
People have found an unpopular target (large funds, still a lot of dislike built up over the 2008 recession, current inflated housing markets in many cities) and there's a swing in popular emotion and yes, public figures have egged it on at this stage, but it's not really a protest against donald trump's deplatforming or liberal elites that some people are trying to make it out to be.
Plenty more people willing to take risks on that among the middle class when the stock market is the only way to even keep the value of their savings anyway. My savings account has an actual interest rate that was cut from 0.50% to 0.01% this year, whereas 2020 excluded, inflation has been around 1% in my country. Many of my friends in similar situations have gotten involved in stocks under a similar background and a not insignificant number of them are operating under logic like "90% in long term stocks, 10% for whatever crazy long bets" (like which airlines are going to come out of this, whatever stock reddit is pumping at the moment, bitcoin or companies like AMD a few months ago which they're like "I use this stuff and so many insitutional investors are completely clueless on the market dynamics").
So you get people with "stupid bets" funds, and an idea that gets momentum (The shorts cannot not buy, let's outwait them), and this is the result.
This is why academic fields involved with "identity politics" are in the same class as "scientists" involved in climate change denial and questionable nutrition/smoking studies. Once there were academics involved in "critic theory" which more or less used Marxist level of analysis. A thorn in the side of the establishment. A branch within this field took the language of Marxism but replaced capitalist/working class with identities(e.g white men/minority women). Ofcourse those in power have supported this branch of critic theory and have gotten to the point where they even use it as a wedge issue. At this point this is the orthodox branch of "critic theory" and it's not because of intellectual merit.
I think the biggest thing that the lay-person doesn't understand is that thinking of hedge funds (and other proprietary firms), banks, exchanges and ATS's, retail brokerages, the SEC, and lawmakers as all being either one entity or all being on the same side is just absolutely incorrect. They all need each other, but by and large they are not friends.
Some claims I've seen that are just comical to me:
"The SEC is going to step in to save hedge funds"
The relationship between regulators and proprietary firms is particularly cagey. The SEC constantly audits them and asks, in my ex-professional opinions, extremely annoying questions about even the most innocuous trading activity. (Annoying because they take so much time because frequently, not knowing what the firm is doing, they ask questions that internal tooling is just not prepared to answer, thus requiring custom development; and annoying because some of them feel like they're just the SEC trying to use their authority to conduct audits to learn more about the industry). But I digress. The SEC is absolutely not going to step in and do a prop shop a favor. Their concern is with the efficient and accurate functioning of the equities market. The fact the GME, a company with no news releases and no change in their (honestly dismal) fundamentals, has experienced such absolutely insane volatility (there are large numbers of options contracts with less volatility, for crying out loud!) is absolutely a concern for them. The fact that "what is the price of GME right now", asked to a person who looked at Apple Stocks app yesterday but not yet today, is "somewhere between 10 dollars and 1000 dollars", is absolutely a major cause for concern to them. Equity markets exist to discover pricing and transfer risk. It's hard to transfer risk if you don't have any idea of the pricing!
"retail brokerages are cancel culturing the GME rocketship!" and similar rhetoric, especially with aphorisms suggesting that the SEC or shadowy "the rich and powerful" are pressing them to do so.
I really, really doubt it. Retail brokerages toe a very fine line, because on one hand they obviously really want people to store their money with them (e.g. Schwab makes like 80% of its operating revenue from interest on uninvested cash balances) and also to use their trading services. But at the same time, they are taking as clients some of the most dangerous creatures known to man: retail investors. They're dangerous because they have so little clue what they're doing (which is like, fine, you know? this is no judgement on them) that there is a very real responsibility places on the retail brokerage to protect them from themselves. There's a reason you have to apply and be approved to trade options, and there's various levels of approval for various risk categories too. You need at least 25k in balances to be a pattern day trader. There's precedent for brokerages limiting access to some ETFs that expose equities investors to the kinds of leveraged risk that is more typical of options. Brokerages have been sued - successfully - for not doing their fiduciary duty to educate investors about risk.
I am absolutely unsurprised that retail brokerages are limiting trading of GME, AMC, etc. I can already see the lawsuits coming when this thing folds - "Why did you let me trade GME given the volatility, especially after the SEC even made a statement about it? I am a retail investor and your client, and cannot be expected to know better, and you failed in your fiduciary duty to me." This is absolutely something a retail brokerage would do to protect themselves from regulatory scrutiny.
(I had more to vent, but this post is already huge so I'll stop here. You get my gist, though.)
I didn't read any such claim in my German and Scandinavian news diet, is this a US-only thing? Here, the consensus seems to be that what happens is a somewhat well-deserved embarrassment.
I think creating and using decentralized alternatives beyond the control of the state and affiliated corporations is a much better tool for creating lasting change. Violent revolutions tend to just replace (or restyle) the ruling class without significant changes to their behavior.
They do realize that and are confident that they will win. In the end it boils down to that.
In here we have a case of the wrong people succeeding at a game that de jure is supposed to be open to everyone but de facto is only open to the right people.
You are taking Stocks linking them to alt-right then to violence. What? You look like a close devotee of an incompetent president whom we just fired. He was also super-spreader of conspiracy theories. No one had any problem with any other conservative president or progressive for that matter until he showed up.
This is a dangerous thing to say in 2021. Merely suggesting violence is an option or eventuality could be considered incitement and get you banned from every major internet platform.
Let's punish hedge funds - fake outrage
Stocks are climbing up - fear of missing out
Restrictions on platforms to prevent people from falling into this scam - fake outrage
Scammers' freedom of speech is in danger - fake outrage
Looks like we entered new era where fake outrage on social media (Reddit, HN and Twitter) can make scammers a lot of money.
I am surprised that HN community is falling for this scam.
Please don't post like that to HN. Instead, either post comments that are unambiguously within the site guidelines to begin with, or be careful to disambiguate your intent. Otherwise we end up in flamewar hell or something even worse than flamewar hell.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
(dang: Thank you for all your moderation. This is a meta-comment, not a complaint.)
Getting absolutely wrecked by irrational market behaviour is a rite of passage for small traders, and it's only fair that some bigger hedge funds should learn that lesson too.
I guess the simultaneous outage wasn’t coincidental. Fidelity did not suffer and outage. I could be wrong but Vanguard was fine too
EDIT
Robinhood's customer(s) are hedge funds like Citadel. I believe it was Citadel who offered Melvin Capital a lifeline. I wonder what the rationale is for TD Ameritrade, and the others?
GME was up over $100 pre-market when I got up this morning, so someone somewhere is buying.
The variations are extreme, in the morning it was hitting 500 USD in the morning, and now 400 USD.
Maybe one of these newly-minted millionaires can cash out and use their gains to sue.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/robinhood...
This whole thing is such bullshit.
Why do Robinhood, Reddit, Discord, etc feel like they have to respond to this? Whether the investments being made are responsible or not, it doesn't seem like it should be their place to intervene.
If the hedge funds over-shorted GME and WSB recognized that and traded against that bad analysis, then that's great! If the pendulum swung the other direction and WSB is trading into some momentum, how is that any different than the hedge funds doing the same with shorts? Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)?
Probably just a coincidence.
They're insane (or self-interested) to pretend the same doesn't happen in cryptocurrencies.
https://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-redoing-infrastructure-to-...
> During the recent bitcoin bull run, Coinbase has struggled to keep itself up during stretches of heavy volume, leading to snarky comments on Twitter and Reddit that it’s only news when the exchange doesn’t go down during peak periods. Given the exchange has filed preliminary documents for a public listing of the company’s shares, fixing its infrastructure has undoubtedly taken on an even greater urgency.
What side do you think wins given the huge hole left in Citadel after propping up Melvin?
Discord, not so. Looking at the financial backers of Discord, you can pretty quickly draw a link to the short sellers. Presumably some phone calls or dinners were had last night and strings were pulled to shut the discord down.
I've struggled with this in some friend groups, particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
Can you elaborate this some more? Are you saying that you've struggled with this because people take that 4chan attitude they grew up with into their IRL lives and are assholes to your son with ASD?
The royal "you", not you specifically.
I didn't ask out of a sense of voyeurism. More like a, "dang, is this something I need to watch out for when I get older?"
Strong moral backbone ya got there.
Growing older and realizing in general that things you did when you were younger are bad is fine and dandy, and indeed is "growing up".
But only deciding things are bad when they personally effect you has nothing to do with growing older and is not a good look. It's just selfish myopia.
Being an adult with a consistent moral framework is about being able to say "this is right or wrong", regardless of if it effects you personally or not. If you only notice something is bad when it happens to you, then that's basically what kids do automatically.
Consider this: you read this anecdote and thought “I’m going to belittle this guy.”
Says a lot about _your_ morals.
> ...particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism...
Which to me says the dichotomy in particular is "before autism personally affected me" and "after autism personally affected me".
Calling people "autists" as a joke is either problematic and worth calling out or it isn't. You being personally affected doesn't change that. At least that is what I would argue is required from a consistent moral framework.
Don't think that says much about my morals, just that I like them to be consistent / not myopic.
Think about the thread we're posting in. This is basically about a company/industry that was like "these retail investors don't need protecting, they're adults and can make their own decisions, even if it means losing money", until those retails investors started costing them money with their adult decisions, at which point they change their mind and decide "actually they need protecting from themselves".
The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you did the same, just swap out financial shenanigans for name-calling.
That's one theory. Another would be that the gaining media attention caused an influx of users to join a group that equates itself to 4chan, causing moderation issues.
The problem there is that the above people are already likely quite busy, and don't want to take on an additional (unpaid) burden by trying to clean up a sub they don't really care about.
I'm not personally associated (not a member on the boards) but I've seen a lot of discussions float my way over the years and if it became that way now it's unlikely to be from 4chan itself (or a community like it).
But your insinuation here gives credence to many that the internet is eating itself, when it's much more likely to be manipulation from those who stand to lose.
I say this as someone who frequented both communities at one time or another: they are very very very alike. I wouldn't be surprised if this who thing is a charade to take money from 'normies' as much a wall street.
Stop moving goal posts its a bad look.
I think that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the language they use means they're mocking people with disabilities or homophobia. Using words ironically just to be edgy is completely different from believing others to be inferior or an invasive entity to be defended against. That's very apparent when you talk to, say, an angsty teenager versus an actual ethnonationalist or even just your garden variety civic nationalist.
They might use the same words, but mean them in completely different ways, and actually be expressing very different things. I think that as it pertains to the internet, certain dialects of edgy, slang filled english are as close to a global lingua franca as can be considered possible. You can't paint all of these people with the same brush. Aside from speaking the same dialect of english, they use it to express very different thoughts, no less diverse or varied as those who speak other ones. This nuance will get missed if you overliteralize what they say and take it at face value.
They do make a lot of autism jokes (mostly pointed at themselves) and plenty of f bombs, but neither of which is generally seen as ban-hammer-levels of problematic (whether or not it is is up to you)
Mind elaborating on this?
Quote:
I think discord probably made some calculations on its own as opposed to pressure from Melvin/Point72. Though in this day and age it seems that the truth ends up being stranger than fiction.
Well, yes...?
this is essentially saying "discord has investors, and the stock market also has investors, so they're colluding". there isn't a real connection here
I'm on the fence whether someone influential actually called the CEO of Discord and asked to have it shut down. I'm 99% certain these people know each other. It's not a could the call be made its more of a was it made.
practically, short selling hedge funds and silicon valley investors don't run in the same circles. yeah, they're socially connected but they have separate networks and cultures. conflating the two because they both involve investing isn't accurate
Behind all of these nefarious entities is CALPERS, etc. just trying to keep your pension fund solvent.
That's a stretch. I think the point here is that some parties can save billions of dollars in losses, and makes them a little more likely hypothetically. Im all for dealing with the facts, but the facts are just looking at the '08 crisis a lot of Wall st funds have a track record of bending rules for profit. It's not out of this world to imagine 12 years later that the same culture exists
Is what RH doing legal for a brokerage?
At this point, nobody cares - Reddit found a repeatable distributed exploit that cannot be patched, and the financial system's self-preservation instinct kicked in.
What WSB is doing only works against a certain kind of predatory short position.
The “patch” is to disallow those predatory short positions, which are themselves vulnerable to well-funded activist investors.
Obviously the crooks directly involved don’t want to do that, though.
Similar to Google or Facebook, if I get the service for free, the service-providers' incentives may be aligned against me in favour of their paying customers.
It seems plausible to me that some of Robinhood's real paying customers have asked them to tame their unruly product.
However, and here is the problem - when the price does come down (likely after the shorts capitulate) , it will literally be a stampede to finally get out. It is unknown how sell orders will be processed... if at all at that point. So the later you get in the more likely you are to be burned, in the disordely unwinding scenario.
Early adopters will be ok. Holders and latecomers will not.
The idea behind these trades is that they will not in fact suffer any losses because they bought in after the naked shorts brought the stock down to a low valuation. If they keep the stock high enough, long enough, the naked shorts will have to buy back the stock at much higher prices than the price was when this short squeeze was started. That's why short squeezes are a thing in the first place. This is no different than what Carl Icahn did to herbalife and Bill Ackman.
When companies keep these people from implementing their strategy, they expose these individuals(their own customers) to potential huge losses.
It's not a loss until you sell, and a key date to sell (tomorrow, when tens of thousands of 1/29 calls expire) hasn't happened yet.
And... The price is in freefall in the last minutes of trading today.
Fog of War is the important bit here. The big difference between this and a pump and dump is that the FOW here is retail investors not having great SI data. In theory, a retail investor could still make this work in a "safe" way (safe used very liberally); it would be a hell of a maneuver for everyone with a short position to somehow close their position in a single day before Joe Retailer is able to get any word on what the outstanding SI is. In a pump and dump, your FOW/missing information is when the party working to pump the price decides the gig is up, which is effectively impossible to know unless you are that party.
A lot of retail investors with four days of experience under their belt are going to lose their ass by trying to suss out their exit intuitively, but for those that did their homework, this could work. For many, it already has. The argument that this needs to stop because uneducated retail investors can get burned can be reduced to absurdity -- "retail traders can vaporize their life savings by going long on a company facing imminent bankruptcy, so they shouldn't be allowed to trade with even the most rudimentary of instruments."
Price being in freefall doesn't affect the huge number of people that were in well under that, the way this strategy is working, or that people somehow still think that going short on this is anything other than a lottery ticket play because of "muh fundamentals."
If you buy 10 shares at $200, that's $2k out of your bank acount, and it's gone, just like if you bought a car.
How do you lose more than that? I'm not talking about shorting and stuff, just buying shares, hoping it goes up, and selling it later.
Indeed. There's a lot of talk about Section 230 lately, and how "precious" it is to freedom of speech. That law protects them from culpability against hosting legally-dubious things like this market move -- and any malfeasant commenting about it -- but none of the big platforms are acting like it exists. They're just censoring anyway, because they are either embarrassed, or are getting their strings pulled. Either stand behind Section 230, or admit you're just censoring things for duplicitous reasons of politics, money, or the rabble.
This is a short squeeze: the stock is shorted to the limit, and from the stock price, the shorters entered their positions "uncovered", so their risk is extremely high, and their losses are potentially infinite.
The WSB crowd and probably others noticed this, and bought the stock, knowing that it was going to become more valuable over time once the shorters had to close their positions.
They were right, and the shorters are loosing so much money that they are willing to buy back the stock at astronomical prices to limit their losses, which drives the price up even more.
The WSB crowd just need to hold until the stock is at the maximum price that the short sellers can pay, right before the short sellers default. That's the actual value of the stock right now.
If the stock climbs too much, and the short sellers default, the stock is worthless.
TBH, this is the short sellers own fault. They made the assumption that the market was "fair", and that they were going to buy back the shares for cheap when they needed them as a consequence.
That assumption was wrong.
In particular, I've seen a lot of speculators spreading the idea that margin calls will force everyone shorting Gamestop to buy stock at market price on Friday. This is wrong, and pretty unequivocally so, but I've had multiple friends come to me and explain that this is why they bought some.
[1]: https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=GME
This is simply not true at all.
I've had my trading on RH restricted specifically because of the PDT rule. As in, I was about to make a trade, and the site told me that the trade would cause a restriction because of pattern day trading.
This is a small part of the picture but RH lost a lot of money due to WSB advertising and exploiting the 'infinite money glitch' so it likely didn't take much convincing to act against WSB.
Though ironically it took them months to close the glitch which was their fault and a day to stop the action on WSB's picks.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robinhood-fi...
“It is not uncommon for us to place restrictions on some transactions in certain securities in the interest of helping mitigate risk for our clients,”
from Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth
“It is very clear to anyone looking at the numbers that the whole marketplace is being manipulated here,” he said.
I imagine Robinhood's thinking is similar
I don't get this.
I didn't know anything about short selling a few days ago and maybe now is a bad time to learn... but my understanding is that short selling is only legal because it disincentivizes bubbles caused by artificial overestimation of a company. Investors took it too far and short sold over 100% of the stocks in a company, ironically creating ideal conditions for a bubble. As soon as GameStop's stock turned upward, the rampant short selling resulted in a demand for more than 100% the supply of GameStop's stock, resulting in a meteoric rise in price.
But how is this market manipulation? The rise in stock price has nothing to do with an artificial overestimation of GameStop's value. It's just fundamental supply and demand. If anything, the short sellers are the ones who manipulated the market when they started shorting over 100% of the stock supply.
Like I said, I'm a complete noob when it comes to the stock market. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
The only issue comes if someone notices that you've done this, pushes the price up to the point where you have to exit your position because your broker won't let you hold this short position that you can't afford to pay for. At that point you must exit, which drives the price up even further because you're creating demand for the stock.
What's important to notice about this is that the second you're no longer short the stock, no one has any incentive to hold the stock. So it'll return to $20 and all those super smart boys on WSB who were holding out for $2000 have thousands of shares of a worthless retail stock that they probably bought on margin and are going to lose everything.
But in the meantime, there are 70M short shares that need to be rebought from the 140M original+loaned shares. The idea is that forcing closing out the short position will allow you to sell some at sky high prices, hopefully enough to cover the loss from the rest of the shares that must be inevitably bagheld.
100% of float or 100% of outstanding are not super significant inflection points, just very large ratios.
Of course the above depends on the short holders to: be right; have the capital to not have to cover their shorts; and be willing to hold on for the ride. I'm not making bets on any of the above.
The "problem" here, is that the little guys noticed. Michael Burry and some unknown YouTuber saw this over a year ago and started buying GameStop, and making a case for people to buy GameStop.
This is very easy to understand. The wrong people are losing money. And that can't be allowed. That's all you need to know for this to make sense.
It's fine to have lots of people buying something, but if they discuss how they can coordinate to hurt short sellers or something like that, particularly on a public forum, despite not being a lawyer I am fairly confident this is prosecutable.
Market trading regulations are full of fine lines where the wrong side can land you in jail. For instance the difference between front-running and pre-hedging / anticipating market liquidity is basically the intent and the information the trader has. The actions are indistinguishable.
It's cute when they phrase it like that, though everyone understands that it should be "chosen clients that make us most money"
"The Verge meanwhile noted one hedge fund suffering amid the GameStop surge was Melvin Capital Management, which another hedge fund, Citadel, has since bailed out. Citadel's founder is Ken Griffin, who also founded Citadel Securities, a big investor in Robinhood that also works with TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab."
I suspect they sell them the trading data just like Robinhood does, to help them front-running the retail traders.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/963627/robinhood-halts-tradin...
But the crazy part is that they only halted one side of the trade... the buy orders. That is manipulation.
Personally, this cost me £1k on Nokia. I went from +£700 to -£1000 over the course of about 30 mins, because the market was pulled from under me.
[0] https://www.nyse.com/trade-halt-current
>But the crazy part is that they only halted one side of the trade... the buy orders. That is manipulation.
Exactly, I mean you could make the argument to stop selling: "The current price is being manipulated and is too high so we stopped our customers from selling if they mistime the market. We will resume selling when prices return to normal."
Edit to add from /wsb:"If you try to sell you will get fucked because who are you going to sell it to if nobody can buy it?"
I hope there is some meaningful action by the SEC. It would be interesting to have all the trades reversed to the point when buying was stopped.
You can make a good argument that WSB are engaged in market manipulation. RobinHood don't want to be the broker for that for a whole myriad of reasons.
Where are the fraudulent statements causing price pumps? None of the prominent due diligence the community has provided that started this run has been found to be untrue. Their thesis still stands: GME was undervalued and shorts were vulnerable to a squeeze.
That said, WSB have been really clear that they're cornering the market to drive up the price. The fact they've done it by coordinating 1001 little retail accounts makes no difference. Short squeezes are always pretty dodgy. This one is openly a conspiracy to move a market.
Shorters got themselves in a dumb position. It seems to me someone is rigging the market to get them out of it. But that doesn't change the core action here: let's conspire to corner the market and force an artificially high price.
First, I recommend you look up the meaning of conspiracy in the dictionary: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
Tell me, where was the secret plan? Everything on WSB happened in the open, in plain view of millions of people.
Second, the market is not even what's cornered here. It's the hedge fund owners who shorted gamestop (fully understanding the risks this entailed), who are cornered. They are the ones who are driving the price up as they try to cover their short positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_S...
One of the dodgiest things in English Common law is the low low bar for conspiracy (see also Joint Venture).
I think we actually agree about the cornering part don't we? I say the shares are cornered, you say the hedge funds but it amounts to the same thing. I definitely agree the hedge funds are looking fucked and deservedly so.
I think we agree on this.
> an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.
Are you saying, though, that publishing advice or suggestions on a forum to buy a certain stock is a crime, or is illegal? That kind of stuff happens all the time in newspapers and television shows. Wall Street insiders have coordinated buying and selling for generations.
So did giving the advice become a crime by virtue of the fact that so many people decided to act on it?
Offering financial advice is a regulated activity. You should have a license and qualifications and insurance and whole crap of other stuff. You may need to declare conflicts of interest.
Advising others to buy a share you hold in the hope the price will go up (or to sell something you're short etc) is a crime. This is why you'll see or hear disclaimers from all sorts of outlets either stating the comments are not advice or declaring holdings etc. The A16Z podcast is a good source of this.
So advising people is not in any way a safe, legal activity for random commenter. "it was advice" isn't a defense here unless you're registered, qualified, insured and declared your holdings and intent to trade.
I'm not saying people don't do it anyway, or that the sec actively hunts ever reddit account that says "I like tesla". They don't. But the SEC gets to choose what it pursues so if it wants to make an example of this or to quash WSB influence or to help its friends in hedge funds, who knows?
Such is the murky nature of financial regulation.
That was the "yes" part. I would add this as "and then some":
Advise or comentory is saying "we should buy GME because its a good company, well run, profitable, undervalued, due for a change in fortune" etc. That's just an opinion or a statement of certain facts.
Saying "if we all buy it, we can break the market and force the price up" goes beyond advise. It is explicitly intended to change the price. In this case, the commenter isn't discussing whether the company is good or not. The company the shares are in doesn't matter. Instead, they're using their size to bully others and drive the price in the direction they choose rather than on reflecting the companies prospects.
That's what WSB (or rather some of its users) explicitly said they were doing. That's what they then congratulated each other on doing. We even sort of agree on this point: they cornered it. It didn't happen by accident, people didn't say "GME is a great buy". They were explicit from day 1: "GME doesn't matter, but we can form a group and coordinate to change its price and make a profit".
Now again, maybe the SEC don't care. Maybe they're too lazy to pursue it or they also think hedge funds do it (much more covertly) so fair is fair. Maybe they don't want the political blowback that comes with this. I don't really care to be honest with you, good luck to the little guy.
But it seems pretty easy to me to make the case at least that this is market manipulation, that it succeeded, that it was intentional etc
When 1 big hedge fund does this, or a few work together, it's just as bad. But they're at least quite about it. They'll discuss it offline in unrecorded meetings. They do it slowly. They're careful not to do it too often. WSB have posted about it and blasting the market. That makes it harder to ignore.
The core concept here is that you should buy or sell stock because you believe the company will succeed or fail going forwards. Doing it to drive the price is an abuse of size. It doesn't matter really who you are, how many you are, or whether someone else is shorting the stock etc.
It also doesn't matter if others are manipulating the price, you don't get to "manipute it back".
Again, I think it's hilarious they did this. I admire it in a dumb way. I'm not calling for prosecutions. I think it's very concerning that execution only brokers took it upon themselves to step in (I'd like an inquiry there).
Im just saying, they did conspire and they did manipulate the stock price. <shrugs>
Thanks for reading this and the other comment. I hope I haven't ranted too much. It's been a pleasure reading your comments!
Do we need market makers to let us always take a position in every single option when no real market for that option exists? I would argue no. It's completely artificial and they profit from it. If companies want to be market makers and profit from every single transaction, they need to be prepared to take a loss when the math doesn't swing their way.
I am not a finance professional but I thought RH is just like a custodian and facilitator of trades. It's not on the other side of any of these trades. It never holds any positions. Why does it have to manage its risk and why does a GME event create extra risk for RH?
I thought this kind of risk is only for the MM's like Citadel.
At some point the word will go out that it’s over—“we won”—and everyone will rush to sell their GME and take profits.
It’s not possible for all those people to succeed. Broker apps like Robinhood will be absolutely overwhelmed with sell orders, many of which will run into technical problems and/or no counter parties. A lot of people are going to be pissed off and blame the brokers.
People buying in late will have the most to lose and maybe the least understanding of what is going on. I mean, this story was a “breaking news” red banner on WashingtonPost.com yesterday. Not everyone buying GME today understands the social movement /r/wsb angle.
Ultimately brokers are worried about getting sued by people or companies who lose a lot of money in ways that will look preventable in hindsight.
Edit to add: the 2008 financial crisis was caused by financial firms selling a lot of crazy mortgages to people who could not afford them unless housing prices went up forever. When the crisis hit, the firms got the blame, not their customers. Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time.
If a broker has a technical problem processing a trade, they deserve to be blamed.
It’s one thing to handle “a trade.” It’s another thing to handle everyone trying to trade at exactly the same second. We already saw broker apps have issues this week just on handling the buy volume. The sell volume will be far higher.
And I mentioned counterparties too. Even if the technology works, you can’t sell if everyone else is selling too.
The risk of not finding a counterparty to which to sell is different - and real - which is why I did not disagree with that aspect of your post.
If we hold a social media company liable for not being able to scale fast enough shouldn't a company offering financial services be held to at least that level of standard?
Shouldn't be possible. Most of the messages to the orderbook, by orders of magnitude, would be market makers doing add/cancel, which isn't something that comes from RH anyways.
How often is one particular user going to send in an order? 10 times a day if they're particularly busy? Doesn't touch the sides. The internet facing gateways can be scaled up easily if that's even needed, they aren't latency sensitive. The inside towards the exchange can be made extremely fast.
I've built systems that do this.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/robinhood-app-down-again-dur...
I mean read the top comments in the top WSB posts today. It ain’t about sticking it to the man. It’s about making money, fast.
That is a pretty gross oversimplification and completely dismisses the variety of "companies" that had a hand.
Subprime lending was just the foundation, but it took investors to investors to buy those securities, and ratings agencies to assign favorable risk ratings to those securities.
This is not totally correct.
2008 was caused by banks giving out extremely risky mortgages (the banks knew they were risky mortgages) and then packaging them up into giant bundles and magically calling them AAA stable real estate investments and selling them forward to other banks/pensions/401ks.
Banks are responsible for assessing the risk on a mortgage, not the customer.
What a dismissive, awful, terrible way to phrase this.
Having parents that were nearly the victims of one of those upside down mortgages, it's not that simple. They didn't ask for a 400k mortgage. They asked for a home they could afford. When the bank, that they have trusted their entire life, says, 'you can afford this much per month', they had no reason to question that.
They're unsophisticated people, who trusted the system not to fuck them. And that's precisely what it tried to do.
While I get that people need to take control of their own money, when the people responsible for looking after your money, the actual, literal bank tells you you're good, why wouldn't you believe them?
The bank doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to mortgage customers.
If someone wants someone responsible for looking after money and large purchases, they need a fiduciary financial advisor, not their bank.
The fact that people think the bank is supposed to look after money is part of the problem. The bank is just a vault. Not only are they not responsible for helping someone pick a mortgage and house, they aren’t even competent to do so.
I can’t imagine some retail bank even employing people who could competently assess individual debt/income ratios.
The training is that individuals should have financial literacy enough to know what banks do and don’t do well. And to recognize cross-marketing.
I knew tons of people who made dumb decisions in the 00s and bought way too much house. The bank letting them was part of the problem. But people being stupid was a big part too. I knew families making $50k/year buying $400k houses and refinancing every six months for cash out to pay the mortgage. The bank shouldn’t have done that. But people were really stupid to do this once much less multiple times.
But some banks thought they could lower their underwriting standards and get away with it because they could shift the risk to larger financial entities by selling the mortgages. And a lot of non-banks got in on the mortgage underwriting game for the same reason.
And bank customers liked it. Who doesn't like to be told that you're in better financial shape than you thought? That should be good news.
My point above was not to defend what banks did, but to point out that, even though banks were in the legal right to lower their underwriting standards, it did not work out well for them or their customers (or anyone else, really). And a lot of the downside came later, in the form of bad reputations, burdensome regulations, etc.
Maybe there were lots of hapless old people who were misled by some bank they mistakenly trusted for years.
I don’t think so, the many examples I personally knew from that period were getting loans from specialized banks that set up mortgage shops, like Washington Mutual.
The book (and movie) The Big Short digs into this how regular people were overextending.
To clarify, the banks were bad actors by offering and participating. But reasonable people were avoiding the situation until the whole system tipped over. Someone borrowing at 40% debt to income or higher should never have done that, even if they trusted their local banker who was saying it was fine. Finance requires personal responsibility and people need education to help make these decisions (and they shouldn’t get this help from someone with a vested adversarial financial interest).
They would have terrible sales numbers and get fired in the first month. Wells Fargo's training was that the more financial instruments a customer had with the bank the better.
Maybe it wasn't intended, but this comes across as particularly harsh victim-blaming.
Yes, the firms got some blame (and a bailout), the customers lost their homes.
Edit: I now see the retraction/clarification you just posted to another commenter. Cheers.
Actually that is impossible. This is a short squeeze. If you forget to sell your share then the short sellers are fucked because they still have to buy yours.
1. SEC is protecting the little guy and being paternalistic
2. Institutional collusion
However, 1. could be likely because this GME frenzy is reducing confidence in the overall market. S&P500 lost 100 pts this week. By stifling buys, they
As others have pointed out, Citadel's market making arm is their largest source of revenue + Citadel's hedge fund recently invested a large amount in Melvin Capital to help shore up Melvin's capital base after their loss.
Unfortunately unless Robinhood insiders leak or post their rationale behind this decision, we'll never really know what happened behind closed doors.
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/2...
Their platform is probably inundated with open orders on these few names, as the price is all over the place. They had outages back in March 2020 and presumably there's a risk of the same if everyone tries to close their positions at the same time (eg, if u/deepf**ingvalue announces that he has exited).
It's users are the product.
I'm sure this started with a call from a "concerned" board member.
There are people literally investing their rent money into GME, and it's almost inevitable that the price will come down at some point, the only question is when and how far.
Robinhood is a margin-lending options-trading broker. If a customer falls down on a trade, it is ultimately liable. If a retail customer loses money and makes a FINRA complaint that Robinhood induced them to buy through its gameified interface, it is liable. Risk and compliance likely made this call.
Also, Robinhood makes its revenue from market makers. They are the customers. Clients are not. So when trading these equities gets unprofitable, they will pull the plug. (Though anecdotally, everyone I know on the sell side in equities and equity derivatives is making a killing on this.)
What I can guarantee is nobody shorting GameStop got Robinhood to pull the plug.
The answer is no.
No, people / pundits / the media were widely proclaiming that the healthcare system would be overrun and the next great economic depression was upon us. Most people assumed the stock market would continue to fall.
There could is also the concern about new accounts trading in GME with funds that might be suspect. It's a risk you don't want to take if you don't know your customers and the bubble is ready to burst at any moment.
Interactive Brokers hiked the long margin to 100% (and short to 300%) which is a reasonable way for a broker to behave.
Killing the ability to buy is not.
If their customers - the firms that pay them, not app users - see the RH platform as a threat to their business they could pull the plug[0]. Or if this prompts regulators to examine RH and similar products.
The risk isn't in the outcomes of options/trades; its risk to their business model.
[0] RH's customer are actually market makers, who by and large will be profiting heavily off of this.
This point has been made repeatedly elsewhere but it bears repeating. Market makers are getting rich off this trading. Robinhood's customers are not hurting from this.
Still, as far as risk to RH is concerned - if this kicks off a change via their customers, regulators, or legal action the change is probably not in their favor.
FINRA arbitration, and the FINRA complaint process, is highly sympathetic to retail clients. When these clients lose money on GME et al, there will almost certainly be a class-action lawsuit for some fraction of their collective losses. And Robinhood's lawyers will almost certainly recommend they settle. That is the risk, beyond margin lending and options settlement, they are seeking to mitigate.
(Also, when that money is lost, there is a decent chance Robinhood will be fined by half the regulators on this planet for inducing people to overtrade through its gameified interface or something like that.)
On one hand, you could say RH shouldn't let people buy options if RH doesn't believe those people can pay up when the option expires. On the other hand, you have people buying options who maybe don't understand that you need cash to buy the shares if the option expires in the money.
Additionally, other retail brokers selling to Citadel Capital have done the exact same (Schwab comes to mind, but not only).
Other brokers however (fidelity), have not. If the short squeeze is to happen tomorrow, this seems an unlikely coincidence that those retail brokers affiliated with Citadel Capital tool positions that would ultimately deflate the stock.
I don't see how GP can assure that no short sellers is behind those moves.
Market makers buy order flow. Hedge funds don't. The only major hedge fund affiliated with a market maker is Citadel.
Melvin and Citron placing shorting GME is an anomaly in the hedge fund world. Most institutional short views are expressed through options and structured products. (Market makers convert those options into shorts, the same way they convert calls into stock purchases.)
Market makers are making tonnes of money on this. It's the low-information non-directional trading their models are built for. (Source: former options market maker. My former colleagues are making annual targets in a week.)
Some hedge funds are getting screwed. But that is mostly over. Few funds' risk tolerances let them extend a 10x loss on an outright short. With respect to their puts, their maximum loss is the premium. That's generally baked into the risk model ex ante.
The only sophisticated parties holding the bag are brokers. Margin loans at risk. Uncovered options sales at risk. Most significantly, when the scheme inevitably crashes, almost-inevitable class-action lawsuits from clients claiming to have been misled by their interfaces.
Aren't these market makers sitting on a ton of stock to cover call positions?
They may have picked up a lot of pennies these last two weeks, but the bulldozer is getting bigger and faster. This is a truly unprecedented situation and I doubt they have confidence that their models can handle it.
> Aren't these market makers sitting on a ton of stock to cover call positions?
The whole purpose of delta hedging is to make them immune to the first-order effects of market moves. The first-order derivative of the value of everything they hold with respect to price moves in any one stock is constantly kept near zero.
In the old days, many options traders would put off hedging their books until near the closing bell. Smart equities traders would watch the options market to see which way the traders would be rushing to hedge in the cash equities market. These days, there are systems that automatically hedge out the positions throughout the day.
How many shares of Melvin Capital were bought by Citadel when they injected $2.75B? Is there a way to know how exposed they are?
Isn't there a conflict of interest in them floating a hedge fund losing money due to flow orders they are buying (or, potentially, not buying anymore)?
I can assure you there are very few cattle, bison, or caribou near the exchange.
While writing, I was thinking of the thundering herd problem and imagined that individual users is more literal (than many processes), more like the thing for which the problem was named.
If I'm not not mistaken, I think you can also refer to a group of humans literally as a herd. But I very rarely think such prescriptivism (saying one should not use terms inappropriately) provides value, especially on a word that is so far past being used correctly with any consistency.
Not sure how you could possibly gaurantee that. Also given that Robinhood edit got a huge chunk of cash from a shorter makes that pretty weird to "guarantee"[1]
[1] https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2..., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25945258
Market makers always win.
I'm seeing one tweet from Adam Hackney claiming this [1]. Do we have a real source?
[1] https://twitter.com/mindmeld_me/status/1354807424998281217
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2...
But Citadel MM is more likely to pull the plug on making markets in a name for risk reasons than to benefit a hedge fund position. To say nothing of the fact that Citadel got to bail out Melvin Capital, which is traditionally a profitable trade.
In particular, I believe Citadel would gain more from continued trading on Robinhood than they would lose from their hedge fund positions.
Why would robinhood be any more liable than other online traders like Fidelity or etrade?
> What I can guarantee is nobody shorting GameStop got Robinhood to pull the plug.
How can you guarantee that? Robinhood likely routes most of it's trades through citadel, which has informed partners it will not be fulfilling GME or AMC or BB trades.
And it turns out Citadel is also a hedge fund that has massive short positions on GME.
Corporate risk controls are also not a hard science, different risk teams can and do come to different conclusions on the same issue.
Every brokerage house ultimately vouches for their clients.
Robinhood has extra exposure because clients could claim its interface induced them to overtrade.
> Robinhood likely routes most of it's trades through citadel
Do we have a source for this?
Also, Citadel just made money bailing out Melvin Capital. The short squeeze let them buy assets at dimes on the dollar. Assets which do not include GameStop shorts.
> which has informed partners it will not be fulfilling GME or AMC or BB trades
Former market maker. When trading got crazy we'd take profits. When it got inexplicable, we'd pull the plug. If we didn't, risk would. In this case, there is the additional factor of political risk--you don't want to be making millions of dollars off GameStop at its peak when that's going to cost you tens of millions of legal fees in front of Congress.
A simple explanation for Robinhood's behavior might be that their customers, the market makers, backed away from paying for this order flow.
All this said, I'd be highly pissed if my broker did this to me. But Robinhood customers have known since the beginning they weren't the customer.
>Do we have a source for this?
Yes.
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2...
I find it nuts how this has transformed into a populist thing.
Normally, a market maker might then close it by buying a share from someone trying to sell. But in a massively one-way market like GME, it's quite likely that they build up a large enough unhedged massive short position that they say "no, we're not taking on any more risk" and communicate that to Robin Hood.
> they say "no, we're not taking on any more risk" and communicate that to Robin Hood.
Maybe, although they would probably do that when their ability to hedge started breaking down, not when they'd already acquired massive short positions.
More likely, to me, is that they would just increase the bid-ask price spread continuously as their ability to hedge degrades.
This assumes continuous liquidity. Dangerous assumption to make in choppy markets.
It is not uncommon for markets to gap up or down discontinuously. You look at the market and see bid 899 at 901, buy some shares for 898, offer them at 890 and find the market is now 125 at 901.
a) most of the platforms are doing the same
b) it's hard to imagine that with half of RH currently holding GME they're not going to come out of this having gained more in users than they lose over trust issues
This is a very tenuous argument. By law, options customers in the US have to receive an information packet and accept an Options Agreement, wherein it's clear that they could lose 100% of their premium outlay (or more). Options trading is approved based on levels; not every account can buy options, and not every options account can sell naked options.
If we are assuming good faith from RH, maybe they are trying to prevent margin-call suicides. But I don't assume good faith from RH.
Not to mention that they turned off all opening trades -- not just large trades, margin trades, or options trades.
However why not just disable margin trading on these stocks instead of shutting them off altogether? I don't really know enough to say. Maybe there are additional risks somewhere unrelated to margins? Or maybe the upstream market makers are forcing their hand. Or maybe it's some combination of reasons, including pressure from people who are on the losing sides of these bets.
> Why should Robinhood pick a winner (siding against their own customers)
As others have often pointed out, Robinhood is in some ways analagous to social media companies. Their end users are not their customers, because it's a free service. The customers are the businesses on the other end, in Robinhood's case the market makers who are paying for the right to front-run trades. If this is no longer profitable for them due to crazy volatility, they can apparently stop allowing trades at any time.
I'm not a lawyer, but to me, that seems like it would be very very illegal.
Yes... or simply increase the margin.
Front-running is super illegal. You're referring to payment for order flow (PFOF), in which a sell-side party like Citadel pays Robinhood for the right to route your order to the exchange. But there's a catch: Citadel is allowed to take the other side of your trade without routing it to an exchange, but it legally has to match the exchange price or cut you a discount. If Citadel can't do either, your order MUST be routed to an exchange.
PFOF makes up a somewhat negligible source of revenue for no-fee/discount brokerages. The bulk of revenue comes from a much more mundane source: interest rate spreads. Earn X% interest on customer cash deposits while providing customers less than X% interest on their deposits.
If your order isn't making its way to an exchange, PFOF isn't your problem, and you shouldn't be day trading. Your real problem is that the professionals think you over-bid/under-asked to such an extent that they're willing to cut you a deal just to take the other side of your trade. Unless you're a professional options trader, betting against professional market makers will cost you a lot more money than the imaginary transaction costs would have.
(This is just a summary of an old HN favorite: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...)
Robinhood operates a lot like Facebook. The "Gold" subscriptions and margin interest are tiny portions of their actual revenue. We are not their customers, we are the product. They offer free trades in exchange for selling order flow data to hedge funds, which in turns allows them to manipulate the markets. Of course they would protect their actual customers.
If you thought free brokerage accounts with no-fee transactions was too good to be true... you were right! There was a catch, and this is it.
So I think in Robinhood's POV, hedge funds are the poor.
Robinhood did not act against its customers. Its users are their product, which it sells to Citadel. As you see now, this is way more than an edgy quip: when its free you are the product.
This is a hedge fund's game as it is for WSB.
It is the regular traders that have shorted via option that are losing money just the same. They are the most likely bag holders because they they don't hedge.
Don't assume all parties are truthful.
Doing this way ensures that retail loses, 100%. Only a retail app was blocked.
It is the asymmetry, I can't see a valid reason for unilateral action from RH here.
A couple funds with large short positions have popped, but short interest hasn't budged; they were just quietly replaced by other funds. At this point probably every hedge fund who trade equities is short GME. If your position is not too large and you have enough cash you can just keep meeting the margin calls and collect your free money when the bubble bursts.
(And stop loss orders don't save you if the crash happens fast enough.)
I agree. Anybody who doesn't think that the algorithms have locked onto GME is stupid or hopelessly naive.
You're not punishing Wall Street, they've already priced you in and are waiting to take all your money.
Suckers.
"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider."
You misunderstand who their customers are. Who you're calling customers are users. Their customers, the ones who pay them, are the dark pools and other trade routers, or whatever they are called, who pay RH for routing trades thorough them.
Robinhood doesn't actually execute any trades. They sell user's trade orders to Citadel, a trade executor. Citadel then buys the shares on the market, and sells them to Robinhood for a slight markup. It's how Robinhood offers trades for $0 fees. You pay pennies more per share, but don't have to spend $5 per trade.
Citadel, and other trade executors, are refusing to buy shares for retail traders. Coincidentally, Citadel also bailed out Melvin fund for their short position in GME. So, Citadel has an interest in not letting the price go up any further. And citadel controls trade execution for dozens of firms.
This is definitely illegal. But Citadel is betting that the resulting SEC fines from this illegal manipulation will be less than the loss they would get if they didn't suppress the price.
Melvin Capital closed out their short position yesterday with a large loss - and Citadel helped cover that loss.
As far as I know, Citadel and Melvin Capital no longer are holding any short positions in Gamestop. So what do they have to gain, by your narrative, from suppressing the price?
Citadel is probably making bank off of this actually, like a lot of other sell-side firms.
If it's true they refused to process for certain securities for their downstream clients, then I believe "When?" and "Why?", specifically in relation to other actions, become legally relevant questions.
If you have to buy by EOD Friday and the price starts skyrocketing Thursday, you might want to buy a little earlier even if it means eating a huge loss, because you don't know if that skyrocket will continue into the next day.
e: Why is that downvoted?
Put options do expire, but the worst case for puts is that they expire worthless. Regular shorts can have unbounded losses.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortmarginrequi...
Melvin Capital's short position was in the form of puts, I think.
Since they would expire worthless, better to sell them when it is skyrocketing than to wait and see it skyrocket further and lose all of your money.
This is incorrect.
[1]: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1q8swwwtgr7nt...
If it were just puts, then their exposure to a run-up would have been 55 million, not billions. Puts can only go to zero. The filing merely hinted that they were shorting the stock because they also had some puts on it.
Think about it, if you buy a $9 put for $10, the most you could lose is $10 when the stock goes way above $9. The unlimited loss scenario with options is writing (selling) a naked call, where you receive a premium but if the stock price rises above the strike price your loss rises.
Melvin's position must have been mostly short equity. Perhaps only a few million shares of a $3 stock.
You don't need an "emergency infusion of 3 billion dollars" if you just bought put options that are now deep OTM. As you mentioned, the total downside is capped at 100%.
They clearly had real exposure and serious panic. If they were using put options they were leveraged or had non-standard terms (not the same as typical retail investors)
But honestly I doubt it was even possible to be short so much with options alone on such a low cap company (as it was before this blew up)
There is no ambiguity in what "closing the position" means. Stating on CNBC that you have closed the position when in fact you only bought shares to cover 1% of your short would put you in jail.
Your mental model for how the world works is wrong.
Is it equally illegal to say on CNBC that you closed it out, but to email your investors and tell them you didn't?
Is the legal issue that you're misleading your investors or that you're manipulating the market? Both?
And despite how it seems from outside Wall Street, hedge funds are definitely scared of the SEC. Banks worry less because their money is sourced differently. Hedge funds have to worry about legal action not just for the fines but also for scaring their investors. When individual investors are so large it only takes a few redemptions to significantly impact AUM.
Is this a joke? Were you conscious in 2007-2008? Lol
If this is accurate then your question makes sense. Why? But how do we know this is real though? They could play games as well and I'm sure they do. Stock trading is gambling.
Melvin Capital has already stated they have closed out their position, think it would probably be fraud if they hadn't.
Maybe, the problem was just transferred to someone else so they can remove it from their statements. And now that someone is trying to deal with this. Unless we have trustable source with all the details on how that position has been closed, I don't think it's safe to assume anything.
Sure, there is some risk in liquidity provisioning, but I think you are really not understanding what market makers do and conflating it with hedge funds.
IANAL but I doubt this would be fraud -- they arent a public corporation making statements about themselves. They did have LPs, but i'm not sure what restrictions there are around speaking -- would anyone know?
You wouldnt communicate to your LPs via CNBC or Twitter.
You recall incorrectly. I encourage you to Google before commenting your recollections, it's quite easy to find.
"Melvin Capital has repositioned our portfolio over the past few days. We have closed out our position in GME (GameStop)," the spokesman said in a statement. [1]
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-27/hed...
this stinks.
Two points:
I am not trying to conspire, genuinely curious.
Source?
Also potentially new shorters getting in? I shorted AMC yesterday and have made quite a bit today.
Today, there is still a 122% short position on Gamestop. There are still many funds hedged against GME. Melvin might have had one of the larger positions, but there are many more funds with this position. Source: https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=GME
As you say, they would make money by running the orders, regardless if GME goes up or down. So - why would they stop? It is most likely that Citadel is still exposed to other funds holding short positions in GME.
There is literally no evidence that Citadel has stopped serving GME orders. That is entirely the conjecture of this thread and ignores the much more likelier option that it was Robinhood that limited the stocks.
Why wouldn't you short GME after the price has risen so high? I'm sure there are plenty of hedge funds shorting now at a much higher price.
Hell, I shorted AMC yesterday and have made quite a bit off of that already.
Because the stock is already over 100% short and an army of retail investors is purchasing it
Because that is also often when it is a good time to make money.
It's entirely unsurprising to me that short pressure on the stock would increase after this.
The risk to a company that processes trades is that many of these retail investors accounts would turn negative and the company that processes the trades would take giant losses they did not plan for. To prevent that, they stop processing trades.
This is something many people are claiming is false. As far as I can find, Melvin have not issues any formal statement on the matter - this claim is purely based on a CNBC "source".
I'll be closing my RH account soon. For now, I'll be holding the line on GME.
Not only hedge funds and brokers colluding against the retail investors, but the government as well. Yeah...sounds about right.
Citadel bailed out Melvin Capital. Not its position. Melvin doesn't have a short position anymore.
Melvin made a stupid bet. Citadel bailed them out. Private sector bailouts aren't free: Citadel got its pound of flesh. Even if they bought the entire portfolio, that portfolio no longer includes GameStop shorts.
If Citadel's asset management and market making arms are colluding, that is illegal. But it's the most complicated and stupid explanation of the bunch. Market makers stop quoting for all kinds of reasons. If I were still on my options market making desk, I'd be pulling the plug on this. My traders would yell at me. This is what you make money on in market making! But the risks of loss go up with volatility, and the costs of gamma getting away can be nasty.
The chances that a fund the size of Citadel has any strong opinion on the direction of GameStop stock is vanishingly low. The chances that they stopped quoting in the name, as did almost every other market maker, and thereby broke Robinhood's system, which doesn't--to my knowledge--directly interface with exchanges to any significant degree, is high.
This is a much bigger deal, some (not hedge fund!) people are going to lose a crapton of money on it, and people are probably going to sue them once that happens.
You can see this discussed elsewhere in the thread.
For trying to get some positive media coverage, after being constantly bashed and blamed by them for the uneducated retail trader boom.
People after the financial crisis liked to talk about fat tails. Risk models assuming narrow tails, reality having a taste for extreme events. This is a fat-tail event. We don't have great models for stocks as volatile and as correlated as GME is right now. Which means for even cash equities trading, we don't have a great sense around what the appropriate spread should be.
Market making has sometimes been described as vacuuming up nickels in front of bulldozers. These are bulldozin' times. You don't want to fill a bunch of sell orders in GME right before it gaps down 80%.
On exchanges. Those are buyers and sellers as well as market makers. Robinhood connects to a subset of the latter.
Nope, pretty much just market makers.
If this is coming from Robin Hood, they could make the (very weak) argument that they are protecting their retail customers from themselves, but if it's coming from Citadel, it just looks like market manipulation to me.
Given that it's not just RH, but nearly all, if not all, brokers that outsource order flow like RH...I think it's safe to assume it wasn't RH decision.
Normally internalizers have no problem competing with spreads on the exchanges, because retail flow is much less toxic than the sophisticated traders in the public venues. But with GME, the retail investors are running the show.
Therefore it no longer makes sense for internalizers to pay for this order flow.
I didn't touch this in the first place, but once it was clear it was a short squeeze, nope, not gonna play that game. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
Source? If I was caught in a short squeeze, this is exactly the kind of announcement I would circulate to prevent the price from going any higher.
Citadel probably gave them the cash to avoid a margin call, knowing they can later manipulate the market and the shorts would payoff in the end, and Citadel would get their share of the spoils.
Otherwise a bailout makes no economical sense, Citadel is not the FED, they can't print money just to cover someone elses losses.
What? No it wouldn't.
Melvin faced cash calls. To raise cash fast they could (a) get it from their LPs (fat chance), (b) raise it from someone else or (c) sell other assets. The last option is a fire sale. You figure out what the fire sale discount would be, say it's 50%, and then use that to get (b).
I don't know what the terms of the bailout were. If I were structuring, I'd make it a loan with a super-high interest rate triply collateralized by their remaining assets. If they pay it back, I get the super high interest rate. If they default, I get the rest of their assets for 33¢ on the dollar. Between those two, the latter is frankly the higher-payoff scenario. (I would also require all short positions be closed out within N days, with the borrower's investors bearing the losses.)
That's what I was pointing out! Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did), they just got more rope from Citadel, and Citadel was willing to do just that knowing they can manipulate the market.
The narative of Melvin was "Citadel gave us 3 billion dollars, we closed our shorts at a loss, you won wsb, aren't you happy, you won, now leave us alone and stop buying".
Yes. Those other assets are presumably uncorrelated to this short position. If they were fire sold, depending on the assets, they could have gotten 20¢ or 30¢ on the dollar.
That discount gives Melvin the incentive to borrow, even at exorbitant rates. It protects the rest of the portfolio. With the bailout, the GameStop loss is capped and eaten by LPs. That sucks. But it sucks less than eating that loss and selling off the rest of the portfolio for peanuts.
> Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did)
You're alleging securities fraud. This may be the case! But we have zero evidence of it. And if Citadel and Point72 invested $3bn to aid and abet securities fraud, that would be quite stupid.
"[Melvin] was rescued with a $2.75 billion cash infusion from two other hedge fund titans, Steve Cohen and Ken Griffin. Cohen was Plotkin's former boss at SAC Capital Management. SAC shuttered after the firm pled guilty to insider trading and paid $1.3 billion in fines. Cohen was not personally charged. Griffin runs Citadel LLC ...
In exchange, Citadel and Point72, the successor firm to SAC, own an undisclosed stake in Melvin Capital Management."
I stare at this crap all day and I've seen no indicator that Melvin has closed a large percentage of their position, let alone all of it. I will 100 percent allege securities fraud.
And what is the likelyhood Melvin had such a significant proportion of their portfolio in such assets?
@hanklazard best me to it
The answer is they didn't close it, they were trying to get the mob to back off.
And no, it technically wouldn't be fraud, they were very careful with their words...
That would be securities fraud.
Lots of people are short? I know at least half a dozen people who bought puts over the last few days. Those puts hedge into shorting the same way calls turn into buying.
I'd say most of the wallstreetbets traders still believe Melvin has their position, but you're saying otherwise. Though the still extremely high short interested doesn't seem to make sense if the big losers already exited...
I do. This will make partners out of a solid suite of securities lawyers around the country. But we won't have clear answers for at least another 6 months.
Also, from what people are saying on WSB, there's no liquidity left in the market which is why some platforms halted trading for $GME.
If the early shorts were all out I wouldn't expect a lack of liquidity, since more recent short positions wouldn't be under as much pressure.
I'm a complete noob, but it seems like literally no one can agree on what's happening and why even though there seem to be valid arguments on all sides.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l642ms/upda...
Naked shorts at this scale are gonna have to go away and no one will have more incentive to reach that goal than main street wall street ... ideally they can and should do this in a way that simply involves making more information public ...
Doing this all in such a publicly-coordinated way on Reddit means you're wide open to people trying to directly play against your goals.
So much of the "proof" of things around this seems to be making big assumptions about who is on the other side that the aggregate numbers don't seem to indicate one way or another.
Tens of billions of dollars of GameStop have been bought and sold over the past few days. If you can buy GameStop to go long, you can buy it to cover a short.
Note that there isn't a limit on rehypothecation. A share sold short by Bob can be used by Anna to cover her pre-existing short.
Yes, at prices that are several multiples above the price they shorted at.
I hope you have a better reason why that's not likely than "but that's illegal." Them actively committing securities fraud seems to be the most likely occurrence from where I'm sitting.
Especially when they're staring at billions of losses and maybe all it takes to save them is a carefully worded public statement that they think they can later argue is technically truthful.
Who would save billions? For how long?
Let's assume the statement is fraudulent. Before the statement was made, Melvin's LPs were set to get hosed. Melvin's general partners, the ones making the statements, have a lot of egg on their faces. But they didn't do anything wrong. They keep their money and houses and yachts. And in all likelihood, after a few months, craft a lessons-learned pitch and raise more money.
After the statement, they have engaged in fraud. Not only is criminal prosecution a risk. All those deep-pocketed LPs can now sue the general partners, personally, for breach of fiduciary duty.
Add to that the Citadel bailout, which removed the risk of the fund going under, and there is no reasonable explanation for lying about closing out the short. If you wanted to show resilience, you'd say something like "we've fully hedged our shorts with long-dated puts, reducing our expected profit but capping our losses."
Selling a stock short is NOT illegal. It is a perfectly valid type of investment according to the SEC:
“D. Are short sales legal? Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, abusive short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading in a security or to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales effected to manipulate the price of a stock are prohibited.”
Basically – you can’t short sell a stock to manipulate the price down so you can buy a lot more of it later. If you believe a stock is overpriced and short sell it, that is legal. That is exactly what tons of retail traders and hedge funds do every day, including on Gamestop.
On the other hand, manipulating a stock price upwards to cause a short squeeze IS illegal according to the same SEC article:
“Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.”
Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week. No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”. That is illegal according to the SEC.
Multiple brokerages, especially Robinhood, probably had their attorneys tell them that “Hey, you are aiding and abetting illegal activity by enabling a short squeeze and could be liable criminally or civilly if you continue to allow this blatant illegal activity on your platform”. So they decided to stop it by only allowing people to close their positions rather than open new ones in support of the short squeeze.
Another strong reason is that if the short squeeze caused the GME stock to go to 5000 in a sudden leap, tons of traders (both retail and professional) could instantly go broke, and then the brokerage (Robinhood) would be left holding the bag. For example, picture a retail investor with a Robinhood account had sold call options in the amount of $100,000 and their account was worth $200,000. If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000. Now multiply that by thousands of accounts…. no brokerage wants to take the risk of being bankrupted, so they shut it down.
The two strong reasons Robinhood and other brokers stopped trading was to prevent legal liability from enabling illegal activity on their platform, and for wanting to avoid potentially massive banktuptcy from traders unable to cover their losses.
Still waiting for you to answer for a quote you have made up[0]:
> most short positions are actually held by retail investors
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119
Do you hold any positions related the question at hand? Are you trying to pump & dump the stock?
Meanwhile you're jumping on internet message boards to try and explain how "the man" is actually totally right in this situation and everyone should really go back to dutifully enriching him without questions.
Please do not downvote me for calling out strange activity by an account which is also spreading misinformation.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119
[1]: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ptetlock/papers/Kelley...
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950657
All of this started on Reddit because someone made a case for their fundamentals.
Here is their Reddit account: https://www.reddit.com/user/DeepFuckingValue/
Here is their YouTube account: https://www.youtube.com/c/RoaringKitty/videos
He is considered a legend by all of the people on WSB (of which I am not one) for it and kicked the whole thing off.
My question is.. how does a guy on Reddit and YouTube giving a fundamental analysis of why he valued a stock, and millions of people seeing value and buying it, differ from something akin to Mad Money?
In the last week though, after the massive increase in GME's stock price, the arguments on WSB have all been about the planned short squeeze and gamma squeeze to convince people to hold on or buy more.
You're missing a party in that analysis. For this party, maybe it was a stupid idea for them to try and short sell in a market where the fed had pumped trillions into the economy and market activity, retail and otherwise, is at an unprecedented level of froth. But with that said, they are supposed to be professionals. It seems to be within reason to expect them to be able to hedge against the risk of a bunch of amateurs deciding to protest buy a piece of their childhood against being raided by Wall Street, no?
After all, "irrationally" holding assets that have sentimental value and allocating a large portion of whatever surplus earnings you have to it is a well known American tradition. Whatever the socioeconomic bracket, people have traditionally found ways to support causes and brands that they hold dear. Shouldn't large institutional clients be asking these fund managers why they're poking a beehive right now, and whether it might just be a little unnecessarily risky?
As the price goes up more people started to believe the thesis and piled in. At some point this just becomes momentum training which last I knew was legal.
It seems like you have taken a very narrow and biased view of the law that fits the narrative you like.
There's no announcement, just a sourced rumor, and no proof they closed their trades when they said they did.
Naked shorting to drive down the price is also securities fraud. And yet...
And I am quite certain that there is no obligation that you have to truthfully tell the world your position in any one security.
So, I’d like someone with legal training to make a case for security fraud.
(It might still be market manipulation or some such).
Citadel, Point72 to Invest $2.75 Billion Into Melvin Capital Management - WSJ [0]
Read As: Melvin no longer has a short position. Citadel (edit: or like someone else said, a 3rd party) does. Citadel will handle this. Melvin is in time out.
We'll figure out who holds the chips in a few weeks time when filing deadlines are due. Thus it's dark.
Thus explains the perfectly executed short ladder today - could only be pulled off by someone with more dry powder than Melvin - but if you look at the Level II data, this is going to take a long, long time.
[0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-...
I missed this. What's this referencing?
Yes which could be called the crime of these brokers
That's not at all verified. Short interest is still well over 100% of float. The only thing you are going off is a poorly sourced CNBC report with wishy washy language from Plotkin.
how long can citadel and/or other entities hold?
So many people here who have no idea what the hell is going on, and yet are so confident.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20070228050751/http://www.alphat...
2. https://www.level2stockquotes.com/market-makers-m-list.html
Retail did nothing to Citadel securities.
Even the amount of billions being transferred here are not interesting.
This makes no sense, if gme isn't shorted then why then break the law and restrict buying it?
And it does feel like they are restricting buys. Seems unlikely that all the trading platforms that rely on citadel coincidentally decided they wanted to hedge against volatility by restricting user buys.
Citadel "bailed out Melvin Capital" because Citadel essentially owns Melvin and so their loss is our loss sort of situation. Melvin Capital stated they had closed out their short position on GameStop, but those are huge losses to cover no one knows how true that is. There is a lot of rumor that Citadel/Melvin Capital re-bought short positions yesterday before Citadel restricted trades to manipulate the market. If this is true it is highly illegal, but this effectively allow Citadel/Melvin to make back their losses if they can force market prices down.
TL/DR, Citadel/Melvin are breaking the law, all the retail traders are getting fucked, but when this is done Citadel/Melvin ends up having more cash than ever.
Untrue, the number of shares short is still 70 million. Nothing changed.
I’ve no dog in this race; just thought I should point that out
I find it exceedingly unlikely that Citadel has no opinion on the value of a stock that could make or break a firm they just lent massive amounts of money to.
It's also very unlikely that Melvin didn't have a short position anymore. I think that was a lie, knowing the SEC fine would be less than what they otherwise would lose. We'll see - maybe. Or maybe TPTB will cover this up.
The question I have is, can this be prosecuted criminally and can those in charge be threatened with actual jail time from this?
I assumed Citadel would actually be cleaning up market making GME with all the trading and volatility, but maybe the trades are too coordinated. What they're paying for is order flow from unsophisticated investors; they don't want to deal with hedge funds and the games they play. Maybe these trades are close enough to something a hedge fund would do, so the orders aren't worth it?
There is nothing but the market makers.
> I assumed Citadel would actually be cleaning up market making GME with all the trading and volatility, but maybe the trades are too coordinated
I suspect they are still making bank. The demand for liquidity has increased, so there is a higher premium on liquidity provision.
I think there must be laws that say the CEO and the board must get prison terms (preferably life, with no possibility of parole) for these crimes.
No, I will not listen to hogwash like "you shouldn't be responsible for the actions of people you hire". BS. They report to you. Even if they did it on their own, why didn't you reverse it? If you are not responsible for the actions of your employees or contractors, don't hire them. Close down. See if I care.
The war on drugs sucked, but it was still mostly a war against dealers.
I just don't think it is accurate to say that people are getting super long sentences for possession anymore and I don't think it is right to use that as justification for longer sentences for other people.
#2: I completely agree.
three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc.
if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you.
there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.
That all said, for all of the negative PR Nixon has received over the years he was a rather progressive and surprisingly egalitarian executive who has been praised by Indian Country Today[2] and appears to have stuck pretty close to his quaker upbringings. I think a lot of people conflate Nixon and Regan - which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the policies those two presidents actually pursued during their terms... And even more folks are getting second hand vibes from Nixon's infamous presidential debate[3] which pitted a rather uncharismatic man against JFK and led to a pretty obvious outcome.
1. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-n...
2. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-rich...
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc Just FYI - if you've never seen this I'd suggest giving it a go sometime. Given recent politics it's almost fantastical to listen to two folks come into a debate focused on the issues and minimizing the ways they attacked each other.
We can be as cynical as we like about boomers and then going on to be Reagan voters, it doesn't change Nixon and Kissenger's status as unprosecuted war criminals.
I'm not overly familiar with Quaker orthodoxy, I'd be surprised if dropping bombs killing 500k Cambodians is consistent with it. Nixon wasn't all bad because no human is, even he who must not be named was kind to (some) children, we're told.
Not all bad can still be utterly horrific.
Hard to laud Nixon in my view, he was pretty clearly a racist man and was the originator of the "welfare queen" rhetoric (and the corresponding cuts in SNAP, etc.).
https://youtu.be/BcR_Wg42dv8?t=153
Your objection doesn't even make sense.
If I had a billion dollars and could get 2 billion dollars but I'd go to jail for 5 years, I would absolutely NOT do that thing.
Fines can mean something, if scaled correctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Like. I understand your point but a lot of people really don't think that is punishment really
These people who are gambling with peoples lives and livelihoods just to get richer need to start going to jail.
Nothing will change until proper punishments are handed out that makes people reconsider being a greedy, selfish, morally reprehensible piece of shit.
https://youtu.be/ghybm4Y6C7w
Here's my perspective.
I spent my childhood around kids from broken families, most of whom had parents in prison on long sentences for nonviolent drug charges. I saw lots of my friends lose their houses in the 00s. I entered a job market that treats just about everyone as disposable; unworthy of training, investment, benefits, time off, bathroom breaks, ppe, or a livable wage.
Wall sts focus on the short term has been like napalm on these issues and made fixing them political suicide. I don't say this lightly; wall st has enslaved America for profit.
>The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90% [1]
The proletariat is showing their heads and nipping at the ankles of everyone. Some are misguided, but beating a hedge fund at their own game, trying to convince boomers that black lives matter enough to not be executed by police, or Medicare for All or forgiving student loan debt are all extremely well studied solutions to systemic issues in America that will not be meaningfully addressed until the root problems are addressed: money in politics, racism, trickle down economics, class inequality, asset inflation, health care, employee rights, war on drugs, etc, etc, etc.
This specific incident was a fluke of luck that required ridiculously overpaid bros in cushy hedge fund jobs to count past 100% while shorting gme/nok/AMC which is playing with the lives and livelihood of the people that work in each of those companies. Needless to say, but watching billionaires repeat '08 with gamestop, amc, and Nokia ruffled a lot of feathers. Gme especially brought out some whales with money to burn in the chase of infinite gains.
Maybe this was an elaborate psyop to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't. If so, great job, if not, well maybe the fat cats on wall st and in Congress should come around my hood and experience the hopelessness for themselves, that's an open invitation for as long as this account is active for any billionaires or US politicians not already arguing against the same issues I am to come and walk in my shoes.
Hopefully this incident spurs some change in wall st and the culture there. Congress certainly doesn't have the courage to.
[0] http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/bloodforblood/outlawanthems... [1] https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...
Because nothing ever happens to the rich when all you do is take a bit of their money away. They have so much that they will get it back merely for being wealthy, and as we just saw with the recent pardons, they won't even serve their entire sentence even when they're stealing the life savings of hundreds.
To clarify: you will never pay more than market price (i.e. you will never have to pay more than the best order sitting on the book). Citadel or whoever will only internalize your order if they're willing to offer you a better price than market price. Otherwise RH is obligated to match your order with the best price currently available.
They are willing to do this because they would prefer not to leave orders sitting on the books, and there's a fee for taking orders off the books which they would prefer not to pay.
Most clearing firms aren’t clearing GME or AMC anymore. It’s not just RH.
They sure made it sound like it was their choice. https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-...
the best financial advice I ever got was to never ignore conflicts of interest.
This would be front running and is fundamentally not how citadel or other MM function.
So, more or less as described, but the order is a little different, right?
What Citadel and others are doing is they are saying to RH "your order flow is uncorrelated and we'd like to make markets for it, we will charge your users slightly lower bid-ask spread (price improvement for user) and we will also give you a slice of the bid-ask spread we do collect, in return the uncorrelated nature of the orders will ensure that we won't have to do much trades in order to maintain a neutral position."
This proposition is actually good for
1. RH users (they get price improvement relative to NBBO)
2. RH (they get to make money and get a user base)
3. Participating market makers (they get much steadier cash flow from MM activity).
It is bad for
1. Big institutions, they get to pay larger spread than they would if the market was more diluted by retails
2. Non-participating MM (they increase the bid-ask spread to make sure it's still worth their time but there is more volatility and it's a competitive market so mis-pricing the spread is a real problem).
Also, current GME shenanigans are net good for MM since MM is a business that makes money on volume, not direction.
IMHO, I'm concerned about this because this is a 1st amendment problem. Let grown adults gamble. Let them be responsible for their dumb actions (hedge and retail alike). If someone is 'too big to fail' then they are 'too big to exist'.
It makes a perfect kind of sense. Nonsense.
Gambling isn't even legal in most states. Good luck arguing that.
What States are you not allowed to short or long? Using your logic, this is cognitive dissonance. How free people spend their money is an act of speech, PACs and SuperPACs are emboldened by this current legal fact.
Maybe you need explicit help to understand my position. If hedge funds can short/long stocks, there should be nothing preventing a retail investor from doing the same.
As for it being speech, well, corporations are people and PAC/SuperPAC political donations (read: blackbox donations) are speech. These are current USA facts.
From there, I extrapolate that it would be unfair to regulate Main Street instead of Wall Street. This wouldn't be such a massive problem if Wall Street wasn't allowed so much leverage (and short 140% of the company shares...how is that even legal. That's literally fraud). I can't sell you 100% of my property and then sell 40% to someone else.
It's that simple, stop obstructing discourse.
Any evidence on this? RH said the opposite:
>To be clear, this was a risk-management decision, and was not made on the direction of the market makers we route to. We’re beginning to open up trading for some of these securities in a responsible manner.
It's not really a bet when they're 50% certain they can get away with no fine, 99% certain the SEC fine will be < 10% of the profit, and 100% certain the fine won't be > 100% of the profit.
Plus time in prison.
Even if there had been some kind of illegal collusion, it doesn't seem likely that stopping trading would have helped Melvin to cover their short position, which they ended up doing.
There is probably no conspiracy here.
They're not siding against their customers. The median Robinhood trader that buys in at $350 is going to be left holding the bag when the price drops back down to $10. You can argue whether or not the paternalism is good or bad, but this is obviously going to on net stop more people from losing money than making money.
The entire history of the retail investing is unsophisticated investors shooting themselves in the foot and then turning around and suing everyone who allowed them to shoot themselves in the foot. It's obvious to everyone watching that for every retail investor who buys in at $10 and cashes out at the top there are going to be 20 other traders who FOMO in at $300 or $500 and then hodls all the way down to $10. People have a stated preference for Freedom to take risks but a revealed preference for paternalism (they start suing everyone around them for not "protecting" them from themselves when risks go bad). You can't blame companies for rationally responding to the legal liability they think they will incur if they let more retail traders pile onto meme stocks.
Or is the platform assuming that its clients are doing market manipulation by coordinating on reddit to push the price up, and wants no part to a crime being committed.
Just speculating, but can think of some reasonable reasons.
Translation: big business interests and wall street hedge funds win out. Of course, lots of retail guys and gals and r/wsb folks are losing their shirts today. It would have been next week if it didnt happen today.
You are a mall owner and 25 000 people are stampeding through your mall causing a ruckus which will in the end create no value for anyone.
This is speculative mania with no basis in any kind of market reality, people are actively acting against the best interests of the participants, especially the companies themselves.
The lack of understanding here is what is 'shocking'.
BlackBerry, Robin Hood, Citadel, NASDAQ - nobody wants to be part of this.
It's ridiculous that people think they are somehow 'doing good' or even have some kind of inalienable right to own shares in a company on whatever terms.
This is a 'market riot' nobody wants to be involved but the rioters.
CFOs are all very nervous right now and I wouldn't doubt if some of the target companies have asked for protection.
One is that most Robinhood users probably under-estimate how quickly they can sell if the price turns around quickly. There might not be enough willing buyers for all of the Robhinhood users who might be looking to get out at the same time.
Another thing is that I'm not a lawyer, but they could be worried that if the SCC finds the discussions on Reddit constitute a conspiracy to manipulate the market, and it's primarily being executed through their platform, and they're aware of the conspiracy and take no action...
But in my opinion the rationale is obvious: you buy a stock, that means you provide that company with liquidity that they can use to operate and grow their business. I guess especially in the startup scene VCs and investors are in high regard since they believe in the future value and perhaps also the product of a company.
Example: imagine I'm a hedge fund and put so much money into company x that the stock moves up. The company probably thinks I gonna fund their business for a few years (remember, stocks are long-term investments). Stock rises, they do a few risky choices. Suddenly I pull back my money. That would suck.
I think options and futures have reasonable functions, especially to stabilize investments and raw material purchase. But speculation can easily get unreasonable, you basically speculate with the liquidity/credit of other companies that actually care what they do. The irony is that futures have been invented to stabilize food production, I think since almost 1000 years. But probably you don't want a large hedge fund play with this stuff.
Also to put on another perspective. People are crazy about fairness on markets, even the super free US market has strict cartel laws. On the other hand large funds like Blackrock are so large, they have government-like powers. They even have the power to decide whether companies should stay or steer away from coal energy. That's even worse than a monopoly.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
This is the natural evolution when censorship as we've recently seen is given a pass.
The ACTUAL different is that since it doesn't cut across political lines, you want to treat the situation differently.
https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315?s=2...
Someone please correct me if I am (or how I am) wrong with the following:
Bob is a broker.
Jack comes along buys 100 shares of X.
Bob lends those 100 shares of X to Amy to sell short.
Amy sells it short. Price shoots up.. Amy says “oh crap.. Sorry bill. Simply cannot buy back those shares. I am bankrupt. I physically do not have the money to do so.
Jack will still expect Bob the broker to make sure his 100 shares of X are there one way or the other.
Bob the broker has to buy back those shares it lent out to Amy so that Jack the account holder is still able to sell/trade their shares.
Because Robinhood's actual customer is Citadel, not the retail people making the trades.
Citadel gave $2.7BN to Melvin Capital a couple of days ago. It stands to lose that money if Melvin (and Citron etc.) can't fully cover their short positions.
A good way to make the stock price go down and allow Citadel to make money, is for RH to only allow selling and not buying of GME.
It's utterly appalling market manipulation.
If you consume a free product you aren't the customer, the person who pays the provider money is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191
Link to the video from the OP. https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
Seriously, if a fund did this, they'd be patting themselves on the back, and would have had little to no backlash from their brokers.
They could face lawsuits from investors in Melvin and other hedge funds, who will allege that the brokers knew they were facilitating intentional financial harm. It doesn’t matter if these are likely to fail; they are expensive lawsuits to defend against and therefore may result in settlements.
And they could face class action litigation from trial lawyers representing retail investors who lose money when the bubble finally bursts. Again, maybe the brokers will win these suits but they are expensive and bad for the brand. “I used Robinhood and lost my life’s savings” is not the news story they want to see 2 months from now. (Edit to clarify: class action litigators have PR strategies to feed these stories to reporters, hoping bad press will convince their target to settle.)
Wait until Robinhood sees the class action lawsuit
Is it possible to make such an allegation in a way that doesn't also plausibly describe parts of the everyday behavior of a hedge fund?
That'd be a gutsy move from a firm that takes a big short position and then publicly bashes a stock.
There's nothing here that's illegal. Insider Trading, Pump and dump schemes, etc all require coordinated distribution or communication of false and/or non-public information. What's happening with GME is happening in the public, in full view of everyone, with a goal of exploiting a hedge fund that overexposed itself through a short squeeze. Short squeezes are legal, and have a large storied history over the last couple decades.
WSB was the very definition of public information, open social media.