[HN Gopher] Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility ___________________________________________________________________ Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility Author : TeMPOraL Score : 477 points Date : 2021-01-29 14:47 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov) | afrcnc wrote: | i can't understand any of this, can someone provide an ELI5 or | tl;dr? | [deleted] | likesprivacy wrote: | Zz 4 :. 1 Wt | andreygrehov wrote: | > Nevertheless, extreme stock price volatility has the potential | to expose investors to rapid and severe losses and undermine | market confidence. | | Well, it has also the potential to expose investors to rapid | gains. -\\_(tsu)_/- | dudeinjapan wrote: | GME's market cap (~$25B) is more than the entire AUM of Robinhood | (~$20B). It's a game of chicken between pros at this point. | Animats wrote: | There's nothing all that new about this. Read "Extraordinarily | Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", which is over a | century old. It describes all the classics - a pump and dump, a | Ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, a "bubble", "tulipomania", etc - | from the first time they appeared on a large scale. | | These are mostly 19th century tricks. That's when finance and | newspapers got big enough to make them work at scale. The SEC was | established after the 1929 bubble got so big it took down the | whole country. | | Meanwhile, the latest thing on Reddit is pumping Dogecoin. | | In all these things, the people who get in late and don't get out | early are the losers. It's zero-sum, after all. | dkrich wrote: | There's a long history of similar occurrences that follow along a | common line: whatever appears to support individual investors | will be the path taken by politicians and regulatory bodies. | | Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on | their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy | is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality | there is probably very little truth to this. However, support for | the individual investor plays extremely well which is why you see | politicians from both sides joining forces on this issue. A rumor | makes it halfway around the world while the truth is still | putting its pants on. Nobody is interested in the subtleties | around these issues where there almost certainly should be | regulations in place or at least warnings from those who do | actually know better. But late in bull markets when speculation | is running wild those who try to be the voice of reason are run | over by the masses until they shut up and go away. | | Galbraith wrote about this in the 1950's and if you read his | account of the 1929 crash the parallels are eerily similar. | Nobody wants to be told they aren't making money due to skill but | because they're caught up in a dangerous bubble. In the aftermath | of a crash when tremendous sums are lost, nobody blames the | speculators, they always find another scapegoat- the regulators, | the brokerages, the hedge funds- whomever. It doesn't matter so | long as the speculator is held up as a victim. I expect this to | end no differently. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | > there is this narrative that the little guy is finally | sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is | probably very little truth to this. | | Which part has little truth to it? | | The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) on | Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported. Some of the "little | guys" (reddit people) definitely were a part of the reason for | that. | kasey_junk wrote: | Hedge funds are not homogeneous and the majority of them had | no position whatsoever in any of the meme stocks. Some were | long meme stocks. | | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/l. | .. | | A Korean fund made a billion dollars on a 12 million dollar | GmE investment and they were only the 7th largest holder of | GME shares. The wsb narrative of this sticking it to Wall | Street is just false. | | I personally think it's a narrative propped up intentionally | by wsb insiders for their own gain. This is just a modern | distributed boiler room. Retail traders always pay in those | scenarios. | FabHK wrote: | > it's a narrative propped up intentionally by wsb insiders | for their own gain. | | Yes, in particularly the passionate pleas to buy in more | and HODL, stick it to the man, stick it to the evil shorts. | While enabling the early longs to cash out profitably. | | Bit like Bitcoin, really. | kristopolous wrote: | It's the same hustle. I've been clicking through some of | the usernames that are posting. | | I've been noticing some interesting patterns. Accounts | that seem to have been abandoned for months or years are | commenting all of a sudden. | | Makes me think some of these very similar looking frantic | lunatic posts are part manufactured. | | It'll take a good effort to show it conclusively | rdiddly wrote: | Interesting - who knows, could even be professional | foreign trolls, only interested in encouraging volatility | a.k.a. instability. | kristopolous wrote: | It's this false dynamic, as if the people working at funds | don't browse the internet. | MattGaiser wrote: | Certain hedge funds are losing money. I am sure some others | are having a great time with this. | zaphod4prez wrote: | (Disclaimer I do NOT know what I'm talking about, just | repeating what I saw on Twitter) | | It seems like they've all closed their shorts already, most | of them did on like day 2 I believe. | | In addition, other hedge funds have been on the winning side | of this trade. Some of the orders for GME last few days have | been absolutely massive, not coming from retail. | hatsunearu wrote: | There was a CNBC post about Citron and Melvin closing | shorts but it was retracted. | whimsicalism wrote: | No, it wasn't. Melvin has definitely closed, although | Citron may still be in partially. | | Why are so many people repeating the same misleading | talking points over and over? | kchr wrote: | > Melvin has definitely closed, although Citron may still | be in partially. | | Source? | whimsicalism wrote: | The original CNBC article that was never retracted. | joncrane wrote: | I believe the statements were worded in such a way to try | to make people believe that the short squeeze was no longer | in play, but the short interest in fact never changed and | maybe even went up. I believe they were also worded in a | way to be technically correct (for example if they had | multiple short positions, e.g. naked short calls, if they | "closed their short position" that could mean they chose | their smallest/cheapest short position to close and it | would be technically correct). | | The data doesn't back up the broader (and presumably | intended) interpretation of their statements. | | In my (inexpert) opinion THAT is the definition of market | manipulation. | [deleted] | whimsicalism wrote: | > I believe the statements were worded in such a way to | try to make people believe that the short squeeze was no | longer in play, but the short interest in fact never | changed and maybe even went up. | | I've seen this "claim" all over the internet. It's not | true. The statements released by Melvin Capital were | unambiguous and of course short interest on Gamestop is | going to go up when it surges to such high prices. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> The big hedge funds are apparently losing money | | _Some_ are losing money. But that is nothing new. Hedge | funds die every day ... on paper. But which brokerage houses | are going under? Other hedge funds are doing fine, likely | profiting on this. The fact that a few are held out as | victims sounds, to me, like the other funds just stoking the | panic. I don 't see any non-paper houses closing over this. | This is Gamestop, not the mortgage crisis. | mcountryman wrote: | Not a financial expert however, Citadel is a market maker | rather than just a hedge fund like Melvin. | | Money is lost when a retail investor holds onto their shares | not just when the stock price rises. | iamacyborg wrote: | > The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!) | on Gamestop, unless that's being mis-reported. | | There are thousands of hedge funds, just because a handful | have been caught with their trousers round their ankles | doesn't mean the others aren't profiting from current | volatility. | dkrich wrote: | That retail is behind a massive short squeeze that is solely | responsible for these moves. At this point shorts from | significantly lower levels have almost certainly been | covered, if for no other reason out of simple necessity. At | this point what started as a short squeeze has ballooned into | a false narrative that retail is sticking it to shorts when | in reality it's almost certainly HFT traders pushing this | stock up and down by now. Retail simply doesn't have enough | cash to move a stock like this especially when by their own | admission they aren't selling any shares! | dagw wrote: | _The big hedge funds are apparently losing money (billions!)_ | | A few hedge funds (of different sizes) are indeed losing | billions. A few other hedge funds have taken the opposite | side of this bet and are making money. The vast majority of | hedge funds have no position in this stock and are completely | unaffected. | | In addition a bunch of HFT shops and similar making a lot | money off the volatility and order flow all this has caused. | enraged_camel wrote: | I mean, some hedge funds are making money, sure. But the | point is that, _collectively_ , billions of wealth have so | far been transferred from institutional investors to | regular investors. | FabHK wrote: | Also, how much of that has been realised vs just being | paper gains/losses? I'm not convinced the original hedge | fund shorters have really closed out all their positions | at a loss. Or maybe they've closed out some of their | shorts at a loss, then entered the short again at a | higher point and are now poised to make even more money | on the (inevitable) way down. | | Conversely, a few investors that bought cheap might have | made huge returns - if they sold at inflated prices | (passing the hot potato to the next greater fool). If | they didn't sell, then the paper gains will vanish. | dagw wrote: | _But the point is that, collectively, billions of wealth | have so far been transferred from institutional investors | to regular investors._ | | Perhaps, but for every dollar that gets transferred to a | small handful of regular investor, I suspect at least 10, | if not a 100, is probably being transferred to different | institutional investors. | | I just don't buy the Wall Street vs The People narrative. | This is Wall Street vs Wall Street with The People | picking up scraps from the battle field and hoping they | don't get stepped on. | [deleted] | [deleted] | [deleted] | adrr wrote: | Not it hasn't. Retails hasn't yet sold and the market | doesn't have the demand to hold sell off at the current | price. The billions paid by hedgefunds went as pure | profit to the big FIs like blackrock. When all this done | and financial disclosures come out. The winners will be | the big financial firms who have already made their money | selling stocks at this inflated price. | JW_00000 wrote: | > The big hedge funds | | Which ones? Citadel/Melvin/Citron (is this all the same one?) | and which others? | unicornmama wrote: | Who do you think is selling GME shares to retail investors | for dollars on the penny? | | This whole thing is disgusting. Once the euphoria had | subsided, people will realize that the hedge funds have come | out as bandits, having traded nickles for dollar bills. | astrange wrote: | Two hedge funds isn't "the big hedge funds". A lot more | people are going to make money not by taking the right | position, but because they are the market, and they get paid | whenever a ton of retail investors decide to come in and buy | GME based on memes. | dalbasal wrote: | Re: Subtleties. | | I disagree. I think a big part of why this whole thing is | fascinating is the depth. Yesterday morning, financial press | were blathering generalities pinning WSB as market manipulators | and calling for regulation to stop them. That is, stop retail | investors trading at a scale that moves markets. IE, the stuff | that insiders get away with regularly. | | Between yesterday afternoon and now, millions of people have | been catching up on the detailed mechanics of stock trade | execution. There's a mad dash from reporter to get interviews | with brokers, clearing house operators & such. | | Note that the maneuver itself was analyzed in detail, and in | public. That's what allowed big names like Cuban, Musk, various | politicians and such to take a side and comment on it | intelligibly. | | Ultimately, whoever is holding these meme stock shorts needs to | buys stock to cover their positions. I acknowledge that brokers | had legitimate/legal/normative reasons to stop retail buys. | But, it's also true that they created a window where short | sellers _could_ buy without competition from retail investors. | Maybe brokers are covered legally against market manipulation | charges because clearing houses were genuinely short on | liquidity. But, (1) that doesn 't change what happened and (2) | Isn't this the regulator's job? | | The reason people are cheerleading is because of these | shenanigans. "Rigged" gets thrown around often, usually it's | devoid of subtlety. This time, it's detailed. We can debate the | details and construction of the rig. Truths fly around reddit | for an afternoon, and are discarded the following day. | | Few people cheerleading because they want a no regulation, pre- | depression stock market. They just aren't willing to accept a | rigged system. In any case, who are the speculators here? Short | sellers like Melvin or Redditors? Short sellers future-sold | 140% of the stock... hoping for a crash and potentially | creating one. Redditors recognized this by looking at publicly | available information and discussing it in the open. | itronitron wrote: | >> (2) Isn't this the regulator's job? | | Is the regulator in this case the SEC, the exchange, or some | other party? | dkrich wrote: | Yesterday premarket when Robinhood announced the cessation of | trading in these ultra volatile stocks, was there a deep | analysis of what led them to that decision? A measured | consideration of why they might do that? | | Of course not. Immediately a false narrative was created that | citadel forced them to do it under threat that they would | stop their order flow. Had any politician or public figure | merely suggested we let the CEO of Robinhood explain the | decision, they would've been dragged by the Twitter mob. Just | look at how Steve Cohen, Lee Cooperman and John Fortt were | shamed for raising what I believed to be perfectly legitimate | questions. But nobody is interested in legitimate questions | when it's hive mind mob rule which is what _always_ takes | hold in a bubble. In fact the vilification of naysayers is | one of the tell tale signs of a speculative bubble. | | To answer the last question who are the speculators here, | shorts or wsbers? Both. But what I'm talking about are the | speculators who are simply buying this up with the | expectation they will make huge gains like deep fucking | value. They can say all they want about how they don't care | about potential losses and this is something bigger. Total | nonsense. Let's see who gets blamed and who plays the victim | if we get a crash. | | It's an interesting world when Mark Cuban and chamath | palyhapitia can be portrayed as champions of the little guy | when they have made billions of dollars at their expense. | Chamath takes a SPAC public every Tuesday. Who do we think | are buying these up? Warren Buffett? Didn't Cuban make his | fortune selling a worthless business to Yahoo? These guys are | using this entire thing to build their own popularity. | FireBeyond wrote: | > Just look at how Steve Cohen, Lee Cooperman and John | Fortt were shamed for raising what I believed to be | perfectly legitimate questions. | | Leon got shamed not for his commentary on the speculation | around the stock, but for the complete failure-to-read-the- | room commentary on his taxes, commenting on marginal tax | rates and "fair shares" as "bullshit": | | > "This fair share is a bullshit concept. It's just a way | of attacking wealthy people, and I think it's | inappropriate," Cooperman said Thursday. "We've all got to | work together and pull together." | content_sesh wrote: | Maybe if Robinhood had done literally anything to _not_ | appear like they were colluding with their customer Citadel | people wouldn 't have constructed "false narratives". Its | some impressive mental gymnastics to see a broker lock out | all of their retail investors (remember, you were | completely free to liquidate your position) and offer | almost no explanation, and blame the investors for being | hasty and jumping to conclusions. | | And for that matter, calling these narratives false seems | premature. As far as I know there hasn't been any actual | investigation by regulators into the reason Robinhood took | those steps (although multiple politicians from across the | spectrum have called for one). It seems many public figures | would love to give Robinhood the opportunity to explain | themselves | dkrich wrote: | > Its some impressive mental gymnastics to see a broker | lock out all of their retail investors (remember, you | were completely free to liquidate your position) and | offer almost no explanation, and blame the investors for | being hasty and jumping to conclusions. | | People don't seem to realize that brokerages do this all | the time to limit their risk. If you have less than $25k | in a trading account for example, a brokerage is mandated | by law to not allow day trading (that is entering and | exiting the same position on the same day). Do you know | what happens if you do? You are labeled a pattern day | trader and you can only exit positions. Actually the fact | that they were letting people exit trades was a big clue | to me that this was risk mitigation while this collusion | with citadel narrative was making the rounds. | mancerayder wrote: | The motivation is one thing, the end result is that it | created a slanted playing field where one party was | blocked from buying, but not selling, and the other party | (the losing short side) could do either unrestricted. Not | only that, but it was pre emptive. We can talk all day | about GME, but the handful of other names like BB hadn't | even reached that point. There was simply a risk of a | short squeeze and we slanted the field here, too, enough | time for the losing side to mitigate their risk. | | Conspiracy or no, the end result is so far from your day | trading 25K minimum example. Your example is a rule that | already existed going in, rather than a rule that changed | temporarily to convenience one side for a day. | tomp wrote: | But why did RH lie about it then? _That 's_ the smoke | that most people see. | content_sesh wrote: | > Actually the fact that they were letting people exit | trades was a big clue to me that this was risk mitigation | while this collusion with citadel narrative was making | the rounds. | | Ok let's say I'm a retail investor using RH. Why should I | need to divine what my brokerage is doing from Twitter | posts and Reddit? My should I need to wait hours for | their explanation that comes in the form of a handwavey | blog post? | dalbasal wrote: | Of course mid-sprint reporting is all over the place. That | said, so has the financial press and insiders. In fact, | during an interview of NASDAQ's CEO, the suggestion was | floated that this is the Russians or something. That rumour | was dropped by professional journalists and insiders. In | fact, the regular, non financial press had a far more | curious response than the financial press... they even read | reddit. | | Going back to "Citadel rumour.." It certainly was off the | cuff and certainly doesn't encompasse everything. That | said, RH _is_ financially dependant on Citadel and Citadel | is in a position to benefit from RH 's decision. | | Whatever you think of Cuban, these people are being drawn | in for the same reason you and I are talking about it. It's | saucy. | | I think your "vilification of naysayers" point is off-mark. | This is not about whether or not GME bets make money. The | whole saga _is_ a naysaying of sorts. Naysaying to the | rigging. | | I suspect I'm probably on the same side as you regarding | the larger point. Speculation, HFT, etc are negatives to be | curtailed not expanded. But, the _" me but not thee"_ way | that financial markets have been structured is an outrage. | | The "revenge for 08'" stuff is symbolic. But, the symbolism | is fairly subtle. The firms being protected from long tail | risk (right, wrongly or even essentially are, again, being | shielded from long term risk on bets only they have access | to. This _includes_ clearing houses and market makers. The | "systemic risk" is the risk that these guys lose money. | Stability is premised on them not losing money. | Dirlewanger wrote: | >nobody blames the speculators | | The hedge funds _are_ the speculators in this case. They 're | playing a dangerous game where you can short more stock than | what actually exists. Why this is allowed? Who the fuck knows. | richardwhiuk wrote: | It's quite difficult to stop without blocking all shorts. | electrondood wrote: | Why? My broker doesn't let me trade unsettled funds, even | though I've made a sale and they're "in my account." How | hard would it be to create a restriction that says you're | not allowed to double-loan the obligation to return a share | borrowed in a short sale? | kgwgk wrote: | Because when you buy a share on the market there is no | notion of it being "a true share that someone sold to | you" or "a borrowed share that someone sold to you". The | only way to prevent double-lending is to prevent all | lending. | bluGill wrote: | How do you know that the stock was loaned in the first | place? If there is a way to know is there a way I can buy | the original non-borrowed one - this should be worth more | money because I can borrow it to someone else. | | It sounds simple, but the details make it hard. | gowld wrote: | Your broker lends your share out. | | I borrow it. | | I sell it to Tom. | | I borrow the share from Tom's broker. | | _Tom 's broker and I both have no idea it's "the" "same" | share I borrowed._ | | Boom, 200% short interest on "that" share. | TeMPOraL wrote: | I think this "is allowed" for the same reason that I can | borrow a book from you, sell it on Amazon, and when you ask | for your book back, buy a copy of that same book on Amazon | and give it to you - but in the meantime, the person who | bought your book from me can lend it to yet another person, | who does the same as me. | | In other words, this works simply because stocks can be sold | and borrowed, and they don't carry provenance with them. To | stop this, you'd have to do the equivalent of DRMing books | and revoking the first sale doctrine. Which I imagine would | turn shorting into a much more complex market mechanic than | it is today. | | (Disclaimer: the extent of my expertise on stock markets is | me knowing how to spell "stonks".) | politician wrote: | Security ownership is the killer app for blockchain. | FabHK wrote: | No. Way too little throughput (unless we slow down | trading considerably, which is a good idea in itself, | IMHO). | politician wrote: | Re: throughput, I think nanosecond resolution for trades | is bad policy. 5 or 10 minute windows are better. | kgwgk wrote: | Shorting more stock than what actually exists is not really | that different from shorting less stock than what actually | exist. | | Imagine you short 50% of the outstanding shares. | | Now there are 50% more long positions than outstanding | shares. | | It's not substantially different from having 100% or 150% | more long positions than outstanding shares. | [deleted] | FabHK wrote: | You could stipulate, though, that the outstanding short | position mustn't exceed the net position, or equivalently | that the total long positions can't exceed twice the net | position. Why not? (This would require new regulation, but | not be impossible, I think.) | | If the total long or short positions exceed the underlying | economics by a lot, you create all sort of weird incentives | for manipulation, as can be seen in the CDS market | sometimes. | kgwgk wrote: | You could stipulate whatever you wanted, but there is | nothing special about that threshold in particular. | | I fully agree that derivatives can create all sort of | problems in many cases, including when the nominal amount | of the positions is much higher than the actual amount of | the underlying. | FabHK wrote: | Agreed fully. The 2x long, -1 short limit is just a neat, | natural limit that one could discuss, and might be easier | to enforce than other (similarly arbitrary) limits. | kgwgk wrote: | I'm not against that, but it's not trivial to implement | either. | FabHK wrote: | Would require to set up a central registry or so, yeah. | (Or finally a use case for blockchain!!!1!!! :-) | | Not sure it would be worth it, I think historically | excessive shorting has rarely been a problem, except for | a few colourful episodes like these. | robntheh00d wrote: | End all speculative finance. | | That's where we ended up after 1929, until the current | billionaire class removed all the guard rails. | | Nobody deep on SV stocks and unicorn chasing wants to admit | they're in the bubble too. Why does society owe floating a | coder bros data science project? | | Anything not science is a meme. That billionaires should exist | is a meme. This is social philosophy, not truth. And it's | gamed. | | America is a bubble in time and it's having a real | (environmental) impact on the future. | | Billionaires are not experts. They're rich and can pay the | fines and schmooze. That is not expertise. It's selling "free | market" and manipulating it based on a meme that speculative | finance expertise is real. All it is is social engineering of | the masses to accept deflation of their economic position. | remolacha wrote: | Bad take. We need capital markets to effectively value and | fund different business efforts (unless you want to do things | Soviet-style). And no matter how much fundamental analysis | you do, some things remain unknown; all finance is in some | way speculative. There are rough patches, but you need to | take the bad to get the good. | ants_a wrote: | A serious outsider question - are shorts an essential part | of capital markets? Or do they at least provide some | valuable service to the markets? | remolacha wrote: | They aren't essential, but they are actually useful. | There have been some experiments with banning shorts, but | they lead to larger spreads on longs because market | participants have to hedge by going risk-off on longs | instead of shorting affirmatively. Shorts can create | moments of volatility, but they improve overall trading | liquidity and reduce frictional cost of capital. | bluGill wrote: | Yes. A short is a way to tell the market you are wrong | about value, and by doing so push the value down to more | reasonable levels. | boring_twenties wrote: | Of course they are. If you believe a stock is | undervalued, you buy it. If I believe the same stock is | overvalued, I sell it. That's how price discovery | happens. If only people who already hold the stock are | allowed to sell it, then price discovery is impeded. | robntheh00d wrote: | No, we don't. | | We need to let people build their communities without | tethering agency to outsiders who control the flow of | imaginary capital. | | Pretending a value in a database is real ownership of | something is insane and continues to lead humanity towards | fascism to protect the oligopoly at the top of the meme | pyramid. | | You're selling an appeal to authority that is a complete | mirage, only existing in your head because of years of | reinforcement. | remolacha wrote: | People can seek capital from whomever they want. But it's | also true that outside capital is useful. If my community | has lots of resources and no ideas about how to use them, | then the world is better off if I take my resources and | find an under-resourced entrepreneur in a less wealthy | part of the world to invest in. That's what capital | represents. | robntheh00d wrote: | Please stop believing you are telling me something that I | do not already know. | | I've been following finance for decades. | | American communities are under financed because of | capital extraction to improve margins. It's a | mathematical fact which carries far more weight than your | hand wavy generalizations. | | The extraction has decimated US communities, empowered | slave labor across the globe, and entrenched power in | hedge funds. | | Do the actual research instead of parroting cable news | sound bites. | | The same pattern happened when manufacturing was pulled | from cities to rural areas 100 years ago. This time the | capital was pulled from rural areas and sent overseas | simply to improve profit. We can decimate the planet on | any continent. We do it in Asia to externalize real costs | and boost financial margins. | | You're talking in a pure emotional abstract. | arrosenberg wrote: | ...and then you have a bunch of money and resources, and | your community has nothing because you took it all out. | Then your community wants to redistribute the wealth | (because they see how unfair the results were to them), | you and your followers scream "COMMUNIST!" at them, and | we wind up in a right-wing authoritarian situation | instead. | | That's what happens when capital runs amok. | eloff wrote: | The very high and very speculative participation by retail | investors is scaring me. I'm reminded of the story of the hedge | fund manager who was getting a shoe shine, and the shoe shine | boy was giving him stock tips. He closed out his positions and | correctly called the top of the bubble[1]. I don't know if the | story is true, and it is just an anecdote anyway. But | historically this kind of activity does mark the end of bull | markets. | | At the same time I keep hearing that the stock market is | actually undervalued on average given current interest rates - | and those aren't going to change anytime soon. | | Definitely things are frothy and there are bubbles in some | stocks, but maybe this market still has legs - at least while | the fed is buying 120 billion of debt each month. | | [1] I found it, it was Joe Kennedy in 1929: | https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archiv... | cardiffspaceman wrote: | In 1929 a series of events took place, and some of it took a | while to happen (like Ford shutting down for a few months) that | pretty much (not completely) eliminated retail accounts from | both the stock market and actually from banking. Much of the | public swore off checking and savings accounts, never mind | owning stocks. | | It seems like the big money is changing its clothes to pose as | children in order to get priority on the life boats ("Women and | children first!"). | | The social circle of firms closely connected to this ruin of | Robinhood and which had been short GME are the speculators. | Short for longer than intraday == speculative. Short as a | market maker for an hour or two is good for efficient clearing. | | It's on the guys with the big money to gather their fortitude | and ride this out in the most-trust-inducing ways they can. I | think the big money is naive if they think it could be | otherwise. | | One more thing, I am reminded that a lot of the time, a retail | investor will buy something, a weak stock, and ride it down to | zero out of misguided optimism. Conducting margin calls on zero | notice is going to be toxic to such people and I don't think | the finance world really wants that money to leave the market | for good. | kurthr wrote: | I take much of what you say a reasonable wisdom, but the idea | of retail investors buying weak stocks on margin and riding | them to zero seems far fetched. They shouldn't be buying on | margin anyway and if it goes to zero, they're going to get | the margin call no matter what. | cardiffspaceman wrote: | So they get the margin call partway down, they pay in to | keep the stock because they have told all their friends | they are long that mess, and out of pride continue to ride | it down. | tootie wrote: | As much as there's a backlash of "it's ok when hedge funds do | it" the GME situation is still an absolutely massive | distortion. The company is still worth the same $11/share it | was a few months ago. Maybe $20 if you think the new leadership | will improve sales. It's not better because it's little guys | doing it. It's still abusive. | unicornmama wrote: | The narrative that retail investors have stuck it to hedge | funds is laughable. | | Who do they think is selling counter party is? | | All they've managed to do transfer wealth from one hedge fund | to another. And eventually when this pops they have transferred | wealth from themselves to other winning hedge funds. | itronitron wrote: | _the enemy of my enemy is my friend, my friend._ | Miner49er wrote: | > Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to | trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the | little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. | In reality there is probably very little truth to this. | | The fact that buying was limited yesterday is evidence that the | little guy is actually winning here. | | Trading was stopped to save the hedge funds, because if they go | under or lose too much, the clearinghouse has to front that. If | the clearinghouse goes under the whole market will crash. | TameAntelope wrote: | I cannot stress this strongly enough -- the fact that buying | was limited yesterday is _not_ evidence that the little guy | is actually winning. | | As has been explained in multiple other places, the | limitations were as a result of Robinhood et. al. being | _unable_ to cover the risks involved in providing instant | trading capabilities for a stock as volatile as the ones that | got restricted. That has _nothing_ to do with "the little | guy is winning" whatsoever, and in fact may indicate that | "the little guy" is about to lose his shirt, due to lack of | predictability. | | Trading was _not_ stopped "to save the hedge funds". This is | an outright lie that needs to be squashed. Stop saying this. | I don't mean to be rude, but the narrative you're spreading | is actively dangerous and not supported by any of the facts | we have available to us. | Miner49er wrote: | > limitations were as a result of Robinhood et. al. being | unable to cover the risks involved in providing instant | trading capabilities for a stock as volatile as the ones | that got restricted. | | Yes RH had to cover more, because the clearinghouse was | also starting to be stretched by the risk from the | violatility. If the hedge funds go down, the clearinghouse | wouldn't have been able to front their cash, and they | would've gone down as well. | | You're also missing the point that the clearinghouse firms | didn't just ask for more money from brokers. In many cases | they told brokers to step selling these securities. | | There's increased risk on both sides, but the long side is | at least finite (and probably there's not much margin). The | short side is not. The unknown risk the clearinghouse needs | to worry about is the short (hedge fund) side. | TameAntelope wrote: | > short (hedge fund) side. | | The claim that "the hedge funds" operate in unison and/or | are all short is probably the largest misconception about | this whole situation. Very "us vs. them" and also very | wrong. | [deleted] | wavefunction wrote: | If you broaden your understanding of WSB's definition of | winning beyond "making a profit" or "maintaining value" to | "taking a loss but having an entertaining ride along the | way" then they're winning and have no way to "lose." Now | the SEC or Professional Capitalists making easy money may | not want WSB to turn corners of the market into a volatile | form of entertainment but it's completely legal AFAIK and | illustrates the disparity between what is claimed about the | stock market by the wealthy and powerful and what the stock | market actually is. If a Wall Street clique-member replaced | WSB and behaved the same way it would be fine, at least | from a hyperventilating "we have to think of the | children/retail investors" standpoint. | ditonal wrote: | Your "facts" are basically corporate PR statements from | corporations that have a huge entrenched reason to distort | the truth and have changed stories multiple times. I'd say | your eagerness to accept RH's version of the truth as 100% | credible is far more actively dangerous than what you | responded to. | ForHackernews wrote: | Some variation of "If you owe a bank thousands, you have a | problem, but if you owe a bank millions, the bank has a | problem" probably applies here. | | If crazy retail investors can bankrupt Robinhood or other | over-leveraged brokerage firms, that's _also_ a win for the | little guys. | | I don't think many HN posters with their stable, extremely | well-paid technology careers can truly empathize with the | strain of aggressive nihilism on display at WSB. | | "I'm only gambling with my future, so nothing to lose." | TeMPOraL wrote: | Here's the thing, though - and please correct me if I'm | wrong: it's not just Robin Hood. Many other trading apps | blocked GME buys yesterday and today, and some of them are | blaming this on banks and brokerages _upstream_ of the | apps. | | That to me looks like the clearing houses themselves are | worried, which means the whole thing poses a risk (even if | easily mitigated) to the greater market. | camgunz wrote: | What you're saying may be true. But then I don't know why | Robinhood wouldn't say that in their first statement | addressing why they disabled buying [1]. | | [1]: https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping- | customers-... | astrange wrote: | They're poor communicators, or thought saying nothing | would be better than saying they'd run out of money to | cover counterparty risk. | alkonaut wrote: | Then the clearinghouse should fail, rather than the private | actors saved. | | Once one accepts that "socialized risk and private profits" | isn't acceptable, then one must also accept that either we | must allow even the too big to fail actors to fail, or we | must not accept any actor to be too big to fail at all. | | If public money is used to rescue a bank or clearinghouse, | then the public should own it. A government institution can | buy any failing bank/clearing house/ if it's so vital, and | then the public owns it. Buying a commercial bank or clearing | house at cents for the dollar and then selling it again in | better times isn't necessarily a bad idea. It's certainly a | better idea in terms of moral hazard than simply "bailing | out" banks without ownership. | Anon1096 wrote: | There was no bailout here of the clearinghouses, and in | fact your line of argumentation supports them. If you want | institutions to be able to avoid getting liquidated for | cents on the dollar or bailed out by the government, you | need to also allow them to defend themselves in times of | trouble. The clearinghouses are doing just that by forcing | brokerages to get higher reserves. | fjabre wrote: | This is not David vs Goliath. This is Goliath vs Goliath. A | reddit mob armed with Macbook Pros and iPhone 11s does not | equal 'the little guy.' | wavefunction wrote: | Interesting that you assign expensive Mac products to WSB | members. The most that can be said is that they likely have | a mobile phone of some time. | [deleted] | dleslie wrote: | The FOMO is palpable. | | There's a hurried rush of small investors hoping to turn their | meagre savings into a big win, backed by the anxiety that if | they don't try then they'll forever regret missing their one | and only chance at a comfortable life. | | This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth | disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed. | sosuke wrote: | When hindsight points out the opportunities that you | overlooked which would have giving you that comfortable life | it infects all future decision making. | throwaway-571 wrote: | Is there a spoiler tag on HN ? These ones still hurt: | | There is a lot of thing one could have done "for the LULz" | but decided to browse HN, Imgur or Reddit instead. | | - Bitcoin. I heard about it when it was still possible to | mint it on CPU, but chose to run SETI@Home instead. | | - Bitcoin when it was at merely $9000. | | - Ethereum when it was going under $1. | | - Dogecoin like anytime before yesterday (up 6x or | something today). | | - #GME when options where pennies on the dollar, or even | the stock at $20 in early January. | | - $Tesla in January, February, March of 2020 or anytime | before the split. | | - $Tesla instead of putting down $1000 to reserve a slot to | buy a model 3 at its announcement, put it in the stock, or | even better, in long dated calls. | | - $Amazon or $Apple last march or anytime before that. | | - $SPCE after it crashed in March (a WSB hyped stock) | anonymous28092 wrote: | I feel $SPCE still has a lot of potential upside. | Robotbeat wrote: | At least Doge has a small transaction fee. 2C/ For Doge | vs like $7 for Bitcoin. Might actually be useful as a | currency like Satoshi intended in his paper (lower | transaction cost than credit cards). But of course those | low fees are because it's not popular. | xapata wrote: | Live long enough and there'll be plenty more. I'll have | more regret over that girl I never spoke to. | throwaway-571 wrote: | Yeah, but (don't) think about where your life would be | today if you had done those thing earlier. It's like you | knew the winning numbers to the Powerball and just didn't | tick the numbers at the shop. It just sometimes when life | gets you down these thoughts just poke at you. | | Same thing with the girl one never talked to. | dleslie wrote: | Dogecoin is ... Just _why_? | | There's no limit on the number of coins. Mining is | designed to be forever-easy. The coin is _designed_ for | rapid deflation. | | Why are people treating it as anything other than the | joke it was intended to be? | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | > There's no limit on the number of coins. Mining is | designed to be forever-easy. The coin is _designed_ for | rapid deflation. | | Yes, but the increase in coins is constant. So as a | percentage of available supply, the inflation rate | approaches 0%. | | Right now, there are 128,000,000,000 DOGE in circulation. | The block target for Doge is 1 minute, with a reward of | 10,000 DOGE, which gives a yearly minting of | 5,256,000,000 doge, which gives and inflation rate of | 4.11%. Next year, another 5.256T gets added, which is an | inflation of 3.94%. | | And of course, since it's a cryptocurrency, there are | bound to be permanent losses in the supply because of | people losing their wallet files. This is difficult to | track because even with a public ledger, there's no way | to be sure if unspent DOGE is simply not being spent, or | if the private key to spend it was lost. | throwaway-571 wrote: | You can still make money of a joke if you are quick | enough! Just @-mention Elon and here you go. | whatshisface wrote: | I really have no idea, but your question suggests its own | answer: fiat currencies are also designed for eternal | inflation (I think you swapped inflation with deflation) | and many people consider that a boon. | legolas2412 wrote: | The problem is the word inflation vs deflation. | | When too much fiat is printed, it decreases its value and | is called inflation. | | But when assets lose value, it is called deflation. | | So, do you call cryptocurrency a fiat currency or a | speculative asset? Because falling value will happen, it | will be just termed inflation or deflation. | snowwrestler wrote: | The key to managing this FOMO for me is really committing | emotionally to the concept of hindsight bias. | | We remember the winners we missed way more than the | losers, because the winners are still present in our | lives today, whereas the losers never became noteworthy | (because they lost). | | But it's extremely difficult to tell them apart ahead of | time. So current me needs to give past me a pass... past | me failed at something that is very difficult; no shame | in that. Wistful regret, maybe, in a "what if..." kind of | way, but I think everyone has those in their life, and | not just about money. | sosuke wrote: | I have this unsupported idea that after I get a win I | won't be as hard on myself for past errors. Like the 3 | BTC I had to sell when it was at $3k. | skulk wrote: | A mental exercise I do to manage FOMO is to try and | remember duds that I pondered might be the next BTC. | Admittedly, it's hard because the brain really tries to | forget about those. Keeping a diary is probably the key | here. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | And then you get the ones like Dogecoin that were | _supposed_ to be a dud, and it 's still around more than | 5 years later and just had a massive spike today until RH | decided to restrict the use of instant deposits to buy | it. | | Can't have the poors making money! | triangleman wrote: | You can rest easy knowing that most of these things | provide practically no utility to anyone (or even | negative utility), and they are simply speculative | bubbles. | Leader2light wrote: | It is so sad. The collapse will come within the next decade. | Total financial collapse. | xbmcuser wrote: | We are going to find out what will happen soon. As looking at | the trade volumes people seem to have stopped selling or | buying looking at the stock prices and the trades it looks | like hf traders rather than retail | f430 wrote: | The rally will continue as long as there are buyers given | the price and the neural pathways have been fully mapped | out. | | What I'm worried about is that there were more than one | Melvin Capital with several banks now involved who do not | own enough shares to cover the shorts. | | Which means we are literally witnessing a money printer go | brrr situation where as long as there are people buying in | due to FOMO or some us-vs-them politics, the prices will | rally. | | The most shocking part is how exposed not only the brokers | are but now the banks are also exposed. We are literally | seeing a repeat of 1929. | | https://www.history.com/news/1929-stock-market-crash- | warning... | [deleted] | znpy wrote: | "That's just, like, your opinion man" | Unklejoe wrote: | > This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth | disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed. | | Maybe, but I'm pretty well off (at least compared to the rest | of the country) and I still feel the same way. It's primal if | you ask me. | oramit wrote: | My Facebook feed is filled with people talking about this. | These are friends I have know for years who have never | mentioned stocks before but now are talking about "holding | the line". | | It is FOMO for sure, but the real emotions I get from talking | with people are outrage and revenge. Everyone feels like the | system (economic and political) is rigged against the public. | The dopamine hit from sticking it to the man is palpable. | pjc50 wrote: | It strikes me that the outrage is free-floating and waiting | to be weaponised by whoever finds the words to trigger it | and point it at a target. Until very recently this was the | pro-Trump faction; having stormed the Capitol and got some | of their leaders arrested that has gone quiet. So there | must be a new disinformation magnet on the internet - and | this is it. | | > These are friends I have know for years who have never | mentioned stocks before but now are talking about "holding | the line". | | That's what radicalization sounds like. | dgb23 wrote: | Radicals aim for the root of the problem. | | In these times it's revealing that there seems to be a | severe lack of solidarity and trust. In a crisis it is | paramount that everyone does their best and that the | strong carry the weak. That's a very fundamental property | of a community. But instead the inequality rises and many | fear for their livelihoods. This erodes trust and can | turn fear into anger. | | At some point in the future there will be the last straw. | It might be the financial crisis, the environment, war or | everything at the same time. The kinds of problems cannot | be explained away; excuses and lies won't help. Only a | sharp turn towards solidarity and sustainability can | avert it. | sanderjd wrote: | That would be useful if they were actually sticking it to | the man. But that isn't what's happening here. What's | happening is a big bubble where most of these regular | people are gonna lose lots of money while the hedge funds | end up closing out their position for a manageable loss and | come out just fine. | oramit wrote: | For sure. This is a terrible way to "stick it to the man" | and i've encouraged everyone i've talked to about this to | stay far away. Unfortunately emotions have really taken | hold. Greed is a hard one to talk people down from but | doable. Anger and outrage pretty much impossible. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | ... not to mention the few smarter hedge funds and mutual | funds that quickly jumped in an out of this and made | substantial gains, leaving everyone who thinks they are | "holding the line" even more "on the line". | ummonk wrote: | Ehh, the short ratio is still over 100%, and I guarantee | you those aren't retail investors. So plenty of | institutional investments to stick it to left. | sanderjd wrote: | You don't know when those shorts got in. The price is | clearly too high now, so it makes sense that | sophisticated investors (probably other hedge funds) | would be entering short positions at the recent prices. | And those recent entrants will not be squeezed unless the | price goes up by another ludicrous amount, which it is | less likely to do now that the initial surge of | enthusiasm is running its course. So lots of retail | traders who got into the frenzy late with normal stock | purchases at these absurd prices will get screwed during | the inevitable crash, while the recent shorters will make | a killing. | ummonk wrote: | I don't think the initial surge of enthusiasm has run its | course. Most are stuck trying to find another place to | buy in due to RobinHood closing off purchases. | sanderjd wrote: | We'll see won't we? | snowwrestler wrote: | I see it too and I think the idea of making money is mixed | up in the concept of revenge, like "finally I'm going to | trick Wall Street out of some money instead of the other | way around." But it's not going to happen that way for most | people. | | I see the idea parroted a lot that if everyone holds the | line, the shorts will have to buy every outstanding share | of GME stock at whatever inflated price it's at. They | won't, though. The bubble will pop. | triangleman wrote: | Even if it was true, much of the anti-Wall Street | sentiment is a scapegoat for their avarice. | NoOneNew wrote: | Everything on WSB states this is a bad investment plan and is | more to bankrupt Melvin because they tried to bankrupt | Gamestop. Short sellers have been using the down turned | economy to collapse struggling companies that hire everyday | people. | | What's funny is how the HN community tries to defend the | firms they've whined about for years. Is what's going on | irrational? Yup. But it pulls back the curtain of what the | financial firms do to the economy and their own manipulation | tactics. | shakezula wrote: | I think what really turned up the anger level on this | specific instance is that they just turned the market off | when it didn't go their way. That's just such a colossal | breach of trust. | sanderjd wrote: | Here's what oh-so-many people are missing: the gigantic | volume in these stocks is no longer coming from the WSB | YOLO bros who know they'll lose money but think that's | worth it to stick it to hedge funds. That may well be who | was getting into the stock on Monday and Tuesday. But now | it is people who saw the story on Good Morning America, | having never previously heard of WSB or Robinhood, who | don't care about hedge funds or any of that, but just got | the impression from the news that hey this stock is going | way up and that must mean it is a way to make a quick buck. | And those are the people who are actually going to get | screwed, not the hedge fund managers, who will be just | fine. | NoOneNew wrote: | So it's WSB fault that the news outlets spun the | narrative to confuse people? | | Sorry, but hasn't the news spinning and generally | misconstruing news stories to the benefit of their | advertisers and financiers agendas been the issue the | past few years? | chrisdhoover wrote: | The news has a long history of prevaricating. "Remember | the Maine." It is only recently that folks are waking up | to what Chomsky spent a lifetime explaining. The | awakening is accelerating. Assange and Snowden, the naked | media lying in the 2020 election, and now Wall Street | manipulation is being exposed. We never had a reckoning | after 2008. If this becomes an infinite runaway squeeze. | Who will get bailed out? | sanderjd wrote: | What about my comment seems to say that it is WSB's | fault? I didn't comment on whose fault it is and I don't | care, I just think pretty much everyone is acting like | the only two parties involved are WSB memers and hedge | funds. And maybe that was true for awhile. But it isn't | now, there are lots of unsophisticated people who have | bought into the frenzy and in a few months all the | stories will be about how those people got screwed. | Meanwhile, both the WSB folks and the hedge funds will be | doing just fine. | khawkins wrote: | Nobody cares about the people who are "unsophistocated | people who have bought into the frenzy", especially if | they get screwed. Further, they shouldn't care about them | because anyone who doesn't understand what's going on | deserves to get whatever happens to them. Stock trading | is high risk, high reward, and that should be clear to | everyone. | | The problem is that hedge funds constantly benefit from a | much lower risk due to market structures designed to | stabilize the market. Many of the WSB people are willing | to risk a big large loss in order to reveal this flaw of | the system. Many of them will not be fine, and, if | they're successful, some hedge funds will be bankrupt and | all of them will be scared moving forward. | allenu wrote: | I know people at work joining Slack conversations about | this and asking how to set up an account and how to buy | the stock, while fully admitting they don't know anything | about stock and have never bought any before. From their | comments, it seems like they just want to throw their | money at this since it seems like a good bet. | whatshisface wrote: | That's quite plausible, but where could we look to see if | that was true? | sanderjd wrote: | The volume in the stock since this became the big news on | Wednesday, and the performance of the Robinhood app in | app stores. | lyjackal wrote: | One point of evidence is the massive influx of members to | /r/wallstreetbets | dzmien wrote: | When you discover something like this on a nationally | syndicated talk show, it is probably too late for you to | get in on the action. | sanderjd wrote: | Yes exactly, but many people who discover things like | this in mainstream media don't know that. | snarf21 wrote: | And what about all the people who watch MSNBC and CNBC | and Cramer, do they need to stop pushing stops as good or | bad too? They tell lots of people "who don't care about | hedge funds or any of that, but just got the impression | from the news that hey this stock is going way up and | that must mean it is a way to make a quick buck" too. | | None of this could have happened if they weren't shorting | GME at 143%+ of float. They were greedy, this is the | consequence. In 2006-2008, they ALL were greedy and so | the government had to bail them out. No lessons were | learned. If the SEC wants to do something, remove these | instruments that allow infinite leverage and collapses. | Spooky23 wrote: | I haven't watched Cramer regularly in a long time, but | unless he changed, this isn't what he does. | | He has an entertainment component, but fundamentally | encourages people to educate themselves and manage a | portfolio of stocks who choose to do so. | | The mob bullshit we're seeing now is just the new normal | - brigades of internet idiots, motivated by profit or | ignorance to run around like a drunken monkey. It's no | different than the political drama we've seen fomented by | irresponsible social media like Twitter, Facebook, | Reddit, etc. | shakezula wrote: | They were greedy, they over leveraged their positions, | and when the market called them out on it exactly like | it's supposed to, they just turned the market off. Im | almost surprised someone hasn't been arrested for that | move yet. | sanderjd wrote: | CNBC / Cramer type stuff is pretty bad too IMO, but way | less mainstream than network news talking about how a | single stock is a rocket ship and making all these | regular joes (just like you!) oodles of cash. | fairity wrote: | Greed is really only a problem when your actions | ultimately hurt someone else. | | In general, shorting stocks is a beneficial action | because it helps prevent shares from becoming overvalued. | | So, yea, the fact that GME had 143% of its shares shorted | is a function of greed. But, no, greed in this case was | not a problem so long as GME's share price was fairly | valued. | InvertedRhodium wrote: | Is "fair value" an objective metric in this context? | fairity wrote: | Yea, it's objective in the sense that it's the net | present value of all future cash flow. Many unknowns in | that formula, of course. | pas wrote: | You're mushing together two separate issues. Shorting GME | at 100+ is not in itself a problem. (There's an argument | that it dilutes the stock, makes it harder for the | underlying company to turn around, because market | sentiment is already against them, see investment | reflexivity theory, etc.) | | There's a problem with bailing out big companies again | and again. While not bailing out small investors | (directly). | | The other problem is that there's no real defense against | CNBC/Twitter amplified end-user stupidity: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMUtU0tOmNE | | Every stock trading app/site/service requires submitting | tons of "risk declaration" forms. (Sure, all of it is | next next finish. It's the EULA/TOS all again, but with | money.) And that's the problem. | Aunche wrote: | We let big players partake in risky things like shorting | GME above 100% float because we don't care if they lose. | It's the same reason we allow them to invest in companies | like Theranos. They know the risks they were getting into | and will still be fine without a extra 0 in their bank | account. Regular followers of WSB are aware of the risks | as well, so I'm fine with them attempting a short | squeeze. The problem is that they're encouraging regular | people to join their crusade against hedge funds who are | most likely going to time the market incorrectly. What's | worse is that most of the world, including politicians | are cheering them on. | mike00632 wrote: | Except hedgefunds only trade money from accredited | investors, i.e. people who can afford to lose a lot of | money. They also typically aren't swayed by TikTok videos | and short explainers of how shorts work designed to hype | up GSE. The point is that Robinhood investors are being | exploited. | Aunche wrote: | Can you explain how you're disagreeing with me? | mike00632 wrote: | I disagreed with the statement about WSB users knowing | what they're doing. Upon closer reading I think our | larger points are the same. All over the internet I'm | seeing sleazy promotions for GameStop stock targeted at | young people who are inexperienced with trading. Anyone | left holding GameStop stock when this ends will lose a | lot, i.e. most of WSB. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Then you haven't been paying attention to WSB. WSB knows | full well they will lose everything. We call it Loss Porn | and it gets us going. When you see 5,6,7 figures in | losses you get desensitised to it. It's a casino, yes we | sometimes make money, we call that the first time, you | know, the first one is free. | | Besides the jokes and the memes, Chamath went on CNBC and | argued that WSB provided very good due diligence in some | instances. Yes a lot of it is utter garbage, no doubt, | but when there are specialists there able to call each | other out, you get to see good analysis. | einpoklum wrote: | > But now it is people who saw the story on Good Morning | America | | Most of those people don't own stock and don't know how | to buy stock. | | And I would guess most of them tune out stories about | stocks going up or down like they tune out commercial | breaks or the business segment of news shows. | vegesm wrote: | Why would shorting Gamestop mean making it to go bankrupt? | The falling stock price of a company doesn't cause a | company to go bankrupt, the causality is in the other | direction. Putting downward pressure on price is useful | only if you want to do a hostile takeover. | stonogo wrote: | Because Gamestop is a business that is in the process of | adapting to changing market conditions, which generally | requires capital, and when market analysts go big on | shorting in public it depresses stock price, and issuing | stock is a major common method by which businesses raise | capital. | | As another example, lots of people assume Elon Musk got | mad at short sellers because he took it personally, when | in fact they were fucking with his ability to raise money | he needed to ramp up production and meet manufacturing | goals. | | These things don't happen in a vacuum. Large funds making | public bets against a company have a material impact on | that company's liquidity. | sangnoir wrote: | Short-sellers _are part of the free market._ They are how | the equation balances itself when trying to find the | "true value" of a concern, or at least an approximation | thereof. | | Obviously the person who owns stock, or is set to earn | billions when the share price reaches a certain level is | going to be adversarial to someone whose actions result | in the share price being depressed - even if that is the | fair value. | | > Large funds making public bets against a company have a | material impact on that company's liquidity. | | There are always bigger fish - and if the public bet is | wrong, someone can, and will earn money at the funds' | cost. | | Edit: shareholders dislike shorts the same way employers | dislike employees sharing salary information; it's a | losing proposition for them, but a fair one. | mike00632 wrote: | This narrative that GameStop is actually a good company | and it's turning around despite all the short interest is | pure bologna. Worse, it's intentionally misleading and | often espoused by people who have a financial interest in | the company. It's crazy to see people in this forum, who | are typically tech forward, hype up the business model of | selling physical copies of video games. | shakezula wrote: | I think focusing on how it hurt GameStop isn't the right | perspective here. I think it's more about how greedy and | over-leveraged the short holders were. When average Joe | goes crazy over-leveraged, the entire world says "well | duhh, you took a risk and now you have to pay." But when | a hedge fund does it, they get to just make a call to | turn the market off for a few hours and try to bail out | their shorts? The hypocrisy is stunning. | mike00632 wrote: | "Over leveraged" typically means you traded too much on | credit in proportion to how much collateral you have, not | that the trade is risky. A very large short position is | reasonable for a company that is likely to go out of | business. | NoOneNew wrote: | Hi, let me google "how short sellers hurt companies" for | you. | | First link of one practice: short and distort | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp | | You can google more yourself. | hinkley wrote: | I believe I learned the term Short Squeeze while holding | Maxwell (MXWL) shares. I sold that position years before | Tesla bought them, but one thing I recall is that there | were a few people on the message boards that were | pointing out how silly-high the short interest was, and | that was, IIRC, in the 30% of float range. | | As we all know, MXWL wasn't bankrupted, but neither did | they thrive on their own. GME also has 4 times the short | interest that those people were talking about. It also | lacks a trove of patents that are worth something even in | a fire sale. In fact the only thing they really have, | IMO, is ThinkGeek, and the last time I looked they had | fucked that up by merging its catalog into their own | hamfisted storefront. | | Honestly, given the current generation of consoles, I | think they may be better off rebranding as ThinkGeek and | having a Gamestop section at each store. We'll see if the | new guy has any ideas like that. | vegesm wrote: | which is all illegal and there is no indication that was | happening with Gamestop | mike00632 wrote: | According to the best evidence, Melvin has no short | position (they may even actually be long now). So the | entire WSB narrative is a lie being used to pump up the | stock. The subtleties matter here. | einpoklum wrote: | > What's funny is how the HN community tries to defend the | firms they've whined about for years. | | Aren't you over-generalizing just slightly? Even in a post | with many comments, only a small number of community | members (if this is a community at all) post anything. And | not a huge number vote, either. | nuusr120121 wrote: | I noticed this recent trend of stuff turning annoying | political in that sub. There is so much trash being posted | now drowning out useful DD. I think at the end of the day, | the original WSB crowd cares way less about political | statements and solely making money. | throwaway-571 wrote: | It's kind of depressing when you look at these crazy success | stories of lottery winners. You realize even a small bet at | the right time could be life-changing. | | Let's say instead of buying a Latte every working days at | starbucks over the last five years you had invested it in | tesla stocks. Or maybe for every starbucks latte you drank, | you invested the same amount in ETF and in Tesla (pay 3 | latte, drink one). Where would your life be? Would you still | be at your 9-to-5 or would you go work for that non-profit? | Or would you just be lazing around on the sofa or at the | beach sipping pina-coladas? | | Anyway, sometimes it takes a lot of energy to deal with the | KIMO (Know I Missed Out). | slfnflctd wrote: | Totally know what you mean. What I do is just assume I'm | going to have to work until I die, and keep angling toward | work I tolerate better. I try to invest wisely, maintain a | few months of cash savings, etcetera, but don't think about | it otherwise. Money is imaginary and anything could happen | to it at any moment. | | If once in a while I want to use some of my disposable | income to spin a roulette wheel or buy GME, and can keep it | under control, I see no problem. If I win, it's a nice | surprise. But if I don't feel like playing, of course I | won't win anything. | | Despite having watched it since Monday or before, I don't | think about what I could've won on GME this week any more | than what I could've won at some dog track. I decided not | to play, and that's that. My life continues on as normal. | itronitron wrote: | It's funny, because I was visiting Gamestop's website last | November trying to find a Pink 3DS and remember thinking, | 'oof, Gamestop's website is in bad shape'. | | When I get the FOMO urge I think about how BBY just sucks | as a store, how much better Netflix is than AMC, and how | airlines regularly go bankrupt. | | I believe that GameStop has a future as they have a lot of | mind share and goodwill. But they need to get rid of their | brick and mortar stores. | triangleman wrote: | The best analysis is always against the company itself: | | - SBUX instead of buying Starbucks | | - MO instead of buying cigarettes (see _The Millionaire | Next Door_ for this analysis) | | - LVMH instead of buying LV, M, or H | | - NVDA instead of buying video cards and AAA games | | - CVS instead of shopping at convenience stores | fractionalhare wrote: | This doesn't seem to be saying anything about those | companies though. It's just that you will do better | financially if you invest money instead of spending it. | | Well...yeah. | throwaway-571 wrote: | WSB is trying to create a short squeeze by buying call | options to crush the shorters. | | RoaringKitty found the stock underpriced in 2019 and then | managed to turn 50k into 13M in 1.5 years + and is still | holding 22M in stock and calls. | agumonkey wrote: | I wonder what's the optimum sizing of FOMO. 1% ? 0.1 ? 2% ? | qznc wrote: | The Kelly criterion tells you how big your bet should be. | thereddaikon wrote: | That's not the sense I'm getting at all. Oh im sure there are | those involved who fit the description. But for most, it | isn't about making money at all. Its about financial warfare | with "the man". | | The overwhelming majority of examples I have seen so far are | only concerned with causing hedges funds to collapse and to | put brokers out of business, personal losses be damned. | | And I see little reason to doubt this. Everyone knows | Gamestop is a company with an obsolete business model, a bad | reputation and little chance of turning things around. | Everyone knows that there is little to no chance of making | any money on holding. But $500 isn't a lot of money. 3 | million people each putting $500 in to GME is. Obviously | there are some who are putting in far more. Current market | cap is $24 billion. Its coming from somewhere. I suspect once | this is all over we will find that some major players got | involved as well and put a lot of money into GME to topple | their rivals. But that isn't the main narrative and most of | the people buying in are doing so to make a statement. | | This has started a discussion. A lot of people are getting a | 101 education on how the stock market really works and they | are learning just how little it actually has to do with real | value and the economy. I predict there will be serious public | pressure for regulatory reform. People are going to want to | make shorting and high speed trading illegal. | AmericanChopper wrote: | > A lot of people are getting a 101 education on how the | stock market really works and they are learning just how | little it actually has to do with real value and the | economy. | | I don't see how you can draw this conclusion from these | events. If this level of price volatility was commonly | caused by market participants, then it would be such big | news when it happens. They're not common at all, they | represent a small number of events where a small number of | shares were traded overvalue for very short periods of | time. Nobody is concerned that stocks are overvalued | because short squeezes are just happening all the time. | Squeezes are also short sellers getting punished for trying | to profit off somebody else's losses, which as far as I can | tell most people think is very morally righteous. The only | time they're controversial is when intervention occurs to | rescue the short seller. | ycombigator wrote: | Many just want to screw the hedge funds, finally it's their | blood in the water. | nullc wrote: | The "their" in your sentence can be read as ambiguous as to | which parties its referring to, aptly. | | With crud like rwsb posters asking if letting their deep | in-the-money calls expire unassigned will screw the funds | more-- it may well be the case that it isn't fund blood in | the water that you see in this feeding frenzy, at least not | anymore. | teeray wrote: | Absolutely. Many view this as a donation to a political | cause that has tangible outcomes. The ROI is watching hedge | funds implode. | iso1631 wrote: | I bunged in $50 into GME this morning because why the | hell not. If pubs ever reopen I can spend another $50 on | a round of drinks with mates and legitimately say "we | took on the wall street parasites". The truth doesn't | matter, the end doesn't matter, the tale is the reward. | gowld wrote: | I can do that for half the price by skipping the first | $50 and starting with tall tales in the pub. | misterS wrote: | But I bet the beer would not taste as good. | dleslie wrote: | Of course! Many are living hand-to-mouth in dismal | conditions and unable to afford basic necessary expenses, | while they see robber barons making a killing by putting | thousands of already-poor people out of work. | | Hating the hedge funds is rational, for many. | xapata wrote: | Irrational, but understandable. | dleslie wrote: | It can be rational to hate those who actively seek to | harm you. Emotion isn't necessarily irrational, so long | as the reasons for emotion are well-founded. | markbnj wrote: | I don't get this. I can't imagine the professional investor | class is still blindly following their shorts. They're all | out by now, aren't they? If the "little guys" are making | money I tend to think it's coming from other little guys. | reggieband wrote: | Believe it or not there is strong evidence that more | shorts are being added. | | Consider a potential attitude that Citadel is going to | get away with this blocking. I mean, maybe ... just maybe | ... they'll get an SEC fine of a few hundred million | (while protecting many hedge funds from billions in | losses). In a worst case scenario a sacrificial scapegoat | or two goes to a minimum security country club or house | arrest for 6 months/1 year. But that will take a few | months/years to come to pass and public sentiment will be | much less hot. So they're probably gonna force the price | down to unwind existing shorts. | | So, since there is a potential that the price will be | pushed down due to the above ... doesn't it make sense to | open a new short position? | NationalPark wrote: | The "short" (haha) answer is that we just don't know what | the funds have done during the last week. They're | incentivized to mislead the public about closing their | positions. But the technical reasons the gamma squeeze | happened and possible short squeeze today could happen | still make sense: the equity has oversubscribed short | interest and a skyrocketing price. | tayo42 wrote: | I'm kind of amazed how little transparency there is in | the stock market. Everyone seems to be guessing. The | unequal amount of information for regular people is | really unfair and seems like an easy situation for | corruption to take place | disgrunt wrote: | No. Apparently other hedge funds got in line behind | Melvin with even more aggressive shorts. | Anon1096 wrote: | The truth of the matter is that hedge funds and | institutions are quietly the ones actually pumping these | stocks. Reddit likes to paint a narrative that they are | in control, but when their messiah has 50MM max of | securities and options, meanwhile single trades are going | through worth over 700MM, the narrative just doesn't make | sense. This is a battle of Wall Street vs Wall Street | with some retailers playing along as pawns. Most likely, | starry eyed retailers are going to be the ones holding | the bag when it all comes down because they're playing a | game without even knowing who they're up against. | | As for the shorts, Melvin and Citron are out but new | shorters get in every day. The higher the price goes the | more incentive there is to short. Most will probably lose | money as the bubble inflates. But a few will make out | like kings when it pops. | xapata wrote: | Why would you short when you can buy a put option? | [deleted] | Gladdyu wrote: | Your gain in delta (due to the stock moving) will be | offset by your loss in vega (due to the volatility coming | off after the impending crash). Option fair value is a | function of both underlying price and volatility, which | is currently at unprecedentedly high values. | kortilla wrote: | > This sort of event would be less likely if America's wealth | disparity weren't so grotesquely skewed. | | Highly unlikely. It doesn't matter how rich the rich are if | you're poor and want to gamble your way out. The problem is | with poverty, which is completely unrelated to wealth | disparity. | | One you can fix by making life worse for everyone, the other | you can fix by making life better for the poor. | BoorishBears wrote: | It boggles the mind people think hedge funds can't profit off | a mad rush like this... | the_local_host wrote: | > It boggles the mind people think hedge funds can't profit | off a mad rush like this... | | How exactly would they do it? Shorting it again would | involve calling the top for a stock whose price recently | has been unpredictable, but very high. | | Writing options seems nuts for something this volatile. I | guess they could "buy volatility" with a straddle but again | what would the numbers have to be on this where they turn a | profit? It's not like the rest of the market is | _underestimating_ the volatility, it 's evident to | everyone. | BoorishBears wrote: | I would be completely out of my depth implying I | understand all the creative ways different hedge funds | make money, but there's a lot more tricks in the bag than | "short it" and "write options" | | Just look at Citadel... how much money do you think | they've made off early access to majority of retail | orders for GME as RH exploded? | | And how much more money will they make on an ongoing | basis after this from all the new users? | | The volume has been insane, someone is making money | besides retail investors, and they won't be the ones left | holding the bag after the musical chairs stop... | Bedon292 wrote: | Volatility makes the HFT's money. Hundreds of millions of | shares are flying around the past few days. Thats not | from a bunch of people buying and holding. They make | money on fractions of a percent swings. They can make a | lot of money on 50% swings. | | The other thing is, the price WILL go down eventually. | Even if not today. A fund with billions of dollars can | afford to sit on a short of GME at $400 for a long time. | Longer than the upward pressure will last. The narrative | was that the short squeeze will happen today, and prices | will skyrocket. You only had to be in it for a little | while. Now the narrative is changing, and it will maybe | be next week, or even farther out. Sure the meme is to | hold forever, but anyone holding any amount that will | maybe make a difference are going to see that life | changing number and sell eventually. | brootstrap wrote: | One of my neighborhood friends is a HFT guy and he says | he makes bank off fractions of a dollar. Not all trading | is equal obviously. But he said sometimes it's like 3,4,5 | decimals places deep that he is watching the stock prices | and trading | Justsignedup wrote: | hedge funds put in some money. They lost. Yeah. But | automated trading solutions quickly flip things around. If | they are smart. Losing money is literally part of what they | do. Some they lose some they win. The success is winning a | bit more than you lose, and very frequently. | dkrich wrote: | I mean do people really believe Robinhood traders are | moving billions of dollars of stock a day? Most admit that | they aren't selling and buying at higher and higher levels. | That translates to very little cash to buy more. There is | absolutely no way that these moves can be attributed to | retail traders or short squeezes. The narrative that these | are retailers causing every significant move higher and | with every move the shorts are losing more and more is | actually causing this bubble. | rory wrote: | Matt Levine's email today estimates retail investors to | be about 30% of total volume (with actual data from | Citadel), but retail was net selling on Tuesday, | Wednesday, and Thursday. So theoretically retail is | enough to move the price if they were truly united, but | that isn't actually the case. It's just not sexy to say | "I bought in for a couple days and am taking my gains" in | a public forum. | kenneth wrote: | Let's say the average bet is 1-5k into this the average | Robinhood user invests around 5k), it only takes 200k-1M | buying in to move $1B into the stock. When you start with | a $200M market cap on a heavily shorted stock, you easily | end up where we are today | BoorishBears wrote: | Average bet being 1-5k feels optimistic by an order of | magnitude... | | The _entire account value_ of _normal_ RH users in the | range of 1-5k | | Most people just joining don't have 1k to just throw at a | lottery ticket, and remember that until today RH allowed | fractional shares of GME | | - | | But you know, that's not even it... | | The other day GME did _20 Billion_ in volume in a single | trading day. More than the S &P 500. | | I don't understand how people think retail can account | for that. | dkrich wrote: | And doing it every day? Even now that the stock is $350 a | share? If they are able to do that I have to question the | "little guy" tag. | nrmitchi wrote: | Why do you think "hedge funds" are not? The small ones that | were caught in a bad position at the beginning? Sure, they | probably didn't. | | But most other funds, or trading desks, or market makers, | or brokerages (etc) are most likely printing money right | now. | BoorishBears wrote: | ... what? My comment is literally saying hedge funds | (like Citadel...) are profiting off this. | nrmitchi wrote: | You're right, I misread. My apologies. | germinalphrase wrote: | 'People' don't know what hedge funds do. | ramraj07 wrote: | Many might be FOMOing, but few want to be told that they're too | dumb to be given this power. Clearly the experts themselves | don't know when they bite too much (as seen in 2008) lets spare | the common adult some decency and allow them to bankrupt | themselves if they wish to do so. America was a great place | precisely because of this freedom | franklampard wrote: | > In reality there is probably very little truth to this. | | The whole premise of your argument is based on 'probably' | tal8d wrote: | Nope, the narrative has been building for the last two days | that this was all perpetrated by fascist white supremacist | deplorables... so it is no mystery which side Democrats will | pick. Republicans will do the same for more classically | stereotypical reasons. | aaroninsf wrote: | Observation: | | When a startup seeking a C round does it, it's -disruption - | moving fast and breaking things - seizing market advantage by | nimbly circumventing slow-moving or antiquated regulation. | | When a nihilistic stan does it, it's - <various pejoratives> - | <motivated by ignorance or abuse or amorality of various types> | | Argumentation over terminology, expertise, etc., is secondary, | | to the ways in which this is about _power_ , which informs every | aspect of how, why, who, and what. Including the language used | and appeals made by those who have it, traditionally have it, and | defend it, against those who do not. | | Many of the details being argued over are interesting mostly | because argument over such details is another tool of the | powerful. | twadfas wrote: | The problem with experts is that they often accept things and | normal that the general public finds unacceptable. The SEC | experts probably see a lot of "Normal" level of manipulation and | improper activity that folks outside the industry would find | wholly unacceptable and would like reformed. This happens to a | lot industries where bad behavior is normalized and ignored by | both players and regulators. | cwwc wrote: | this is a warning to FINRA, too | cwwc wrote: | (FINRA is a like a mini, NGO-SEC for broker dealers) | [deleted] | dls2016 wrote: | What are the odds of a flash crash in the next week as a result | of this activity? The system of banks and market makers and | clearing houses is a always way more coupled than the the owners | let on... history shows they don't know how to risk manage these | sorts of situations. | rich_sasha wrote: | From a distance, this is all a storm in a teacup. It's a small | handful of stocks, and every single one in S&P500 is waaaay | bigger, in terms of trading volumes and market cap. | | Anything can happen, but in finance terms, this is tiny so far. | acover wrote: | The issue isn't GME market cap vs the S&P 500. It's that the | clearing houses, exchanges and other intermediaries that | guarantee every trade may go bankrupt due to the $15+ billion | loss on options that they may have to cover. | jiofih wrote: | Why do clearing houses have to cover losses, isn't it the | options seller on the other side that takes it? | rich_sasha wrote: | Clearing houses cover any shortage of money due to one | party not paying up. So if someone sells an option on an | exchange, then doesn't pony up, the clearing house must. | And if too many people don't pony up, the clearing house | is in trouble. | | Except it is far more complicated. Does Robin Hood allow | the selling options? That would seem ridiculously stupid | if it does, but let's say yes. The clearing house has | nothing to do with the seller, or in fact probably with | Robin Hood. It will be dealing with Robin Hood's dealer, | probably a big bank (think JP Morgan or the like), and | there's a cascade of who-owes-who. | | Robin Hood clients ought to pay to Robin Hood if they owe | money on short options, but if they fail, then Robin Hood | must cover that to the broker. The broker wants to make | sure it doesn't lose any money on trading with Robin | Hood, because if it does, it still needs to make good to | the exchange. And only if the broker fails, _then_ the | clearing house gets involved. | | If you can only buy options on Robin Hood (or, in any | case, cannot be short), then there isn't much of an issue | there. The issue would arise if the broker cannot pay the | option payouts, but that's very unlikely. Banks deal with | option trading all the time, and spend lots of money on | hedging their exposure to the underlying stock. This is | essentially a solved problem, and the scale of what's | going on is way too small to stress that. | acover wrote: | Let's say you are buying an option contract on an | exchange. You don't know who is selling to you and | whether they can actually pay you when the time comes. In | order to solve this issue, intermediates act as a | guarantor of all transactions allowing investors to treat | each seller the same. This lets investors only care about | price instead of "who". | | I am not an expert, I only have very surface knowledge | and don't know the exact chain of intermediaries for each | market but I know one such guarantor is the Chicago | mercantile exchange. | | https://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/risk-management.html | dls2016 wrote: | Yeah everyone says short sales have "infinite loss | potential", but at some point the lender will recognize | that those shares aren't coming back. | rich_sasha wrote: | I'd be very worried about Robin Hood's solvency, since they | let people trade on margins, and retail investors are | presumably difficult to get debts out from. I seriously | doubt they underwrite their own options, more likely they | just sell some broker's options. | | Otherwise... sure some funds might lose a lot of money. But | a lot of money for a fund (and it's investors). I wouldn't | say we're seeing _anything_ like systemic risk. If nothing | else, Redditors ' pockets are only so deep, and there's | only so much meme stocks they can buy. | | So where does it leave us? Perhaps Robin Hood might go | under (though it looks like they learnt their lesson and | got some cash, so maybe not). Some funds went under, and | maybe some other will too. But generally, funds are not | major systemic risk. They are speculative money. It's been | going on for long enough that clearing houses requested the | higher margins already. I don't think banks have any real | skin in this game. | | What was so terrible about 2008 financial crash, from the | technocratic point of view, was that it was banks that were | affected, and they are, among other things, the very | plumbing of the financial system we all depend on. | | Of course life can prove me wrong :) but I'm not remotely | worried atm. | kart23 wrote: | the inverse correlation between the S&P and GME style stocks | looks strong over the last couple days. | dkrich wrote: | I'd be very careful about making this assumption. There is | always bleed over in unexpected ways. When these stocks | spiked on Wednesday the market as a whole came down hard. | Perception is extremely important and if people start to fear | that brokerages could be insolvent or just lose faith in the | valuations of stocks as a whole it could definitely effect | the entire market. | llampx wrote: | I follow the markets, and the market does a hard mini-crash | about once every two weeks. You don't notice it as a buy- | and-hold investor, but it raises the hackles of many short- | term traders. | dageshi wrote: | If that's the case I'm kinda confused why trading platforms | keep banning trades in these particular meme stocks? | andreygrehov wrote: | In the case of Robinhood: | | > On Thursday, Robinhood was forced to stop customers from | buying a number of stocks like GameStop that were heavily | traded this week. To continue operating, it drew on a line | of credit from six banks amounting to between $500 million | and $600 million to meet higher margin, or lending, | requirements from its central clearing facility for stock | trades, known as the Depository Trust & Clearing | Corporation. | ThrustVectoring wrote: | It's down to minutiae in the collateral brokers have to | post to ensure that the clearing house doesn't eat losses. | Trades on Wednesday aren't settled until Friday, so if a | brokerage firm dies in the interim they have an obligation | to complete a bunch of trades that they might not have cash | for, and unwinding that exposes counterparties to the price | moves in the interim. RH users have been buying a lot of | meme stocks that move a lot in price, so they have to put | up _vast_ amounts of funds to ensure that nobody else | suffers losses if they were to back out of the unsettled | trades. | klodolph wrote: | Because they are forced to carry collateral to make the | trades happen, and need more collateral for more volatile | stocks. | rich_sasha wrote: | What's small for the whole market isn't necessarily small | for Robin Hood. | | It's not out of the question that Robin Hood could go under | as a result of these shenanigans. Just very unlikely that | would trigger any serious fallout downwind. | snet0 wrote: | Because of the volatility of the stock, I believe. | 100->300->200->300 in the space of no time at all. You | could've watched the stock just jump all over the place in | real-time, pretty much. | marcosdumay wrote: | It's not because of this stock. The question is quite | reasonable because some funds were overexposed into it, and | the funds are much larger. | davio wrote: | GME has the market cap of a S&P300 sized company right now. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Newest from the front lines, Freetrade (UK trading app) just | blocked buy orders for US stocks... but they explicitly pin it | on "a sudden and unexpected decision by our FX provider, and | their bank"[0]. In another statement, they also express their | deep unhappiness about it[1]. | | Assuming they're being honest - and I see no reason to doubt it | - it's refreshing, compared to Robin Hood's communications, and | more importantly it highlights your point. The "backend" of the | market seems way more coupled than I imagined it is. | | -- | | [0] - https://twitter.com/freetrade/status/1355161107699273729 | | [1] - | https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l7u3ag/free... | zinekeller wrote: | Corrobating on this, same thing happened on my side that all | US financial products (apart from regular deposits, cheque | (or check?) and loans including credit cards) were suspended | "beyond our control", so there is some action taken by US- | based fincacial companies due to this (either because of | laziness or genuine worry that they might be punished). | | Nota bene: I do hold some Nokia stocks, but it is from | (Nasdaq) Helsinki and not from NYSE and it was already in my | possesion waay before these brouhaha. I don't hold any other | stocks that were affected, including stocks for GameStop. | dls2016 wrote: | > The "backend" of the market seems way more coupled than I | imagined it is. | | Exactly. Overlay this on the backdrop of a frothy, juiced up | market and a bunch of angry people on their phones (I bought | a few GME out of spite at $360 after considering it way back | at $15)... one little push could cause the market to throw a | rod, I feel. These people run the system at max RPM with | minimal oil as it is. | throwaway4good wrote: | In the mentioned stocks? Very high. | | However for the broader market; GME and friends are tiny. | | Ristricting trading is a way of managing risk. | jeffbee wrote: | The last giant crash was triggered by a single party (Bear | Stearns) running out of credit. Do not underestimate the | events that could follow if this volatility destabilizes a | large market participant. | lm28469 wrote: | > The last giant crash was triggered by a single party | (Bear Stearns) running out of credit. | | It was waaaaaay more complex than that, the Bear Stearns | thing was one of many worldwide symptoms (not cause) of a | widespread problem. | | There is nothing to compare between this GME event and 2008 | crisis (even though there are plenty of other issues that | could lead to one) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007-2008 | dls2016 wrote: | That was the point of my original post. Not that current | events are comparable to historical events as far as the | mechanism of crisis is concerned... but that stresses | like the ones today have a way of uncovering new and | interesting failure modes which people collectively wrote | off as unlikely. | jeffbee wrote: | That is why I said it was triggered by, not caused by. | TeMPOraL wrote: | There's definitely going to be _some_ impact on other | stocks, as at the very least, retail trading apps | overcompensate and block buys on other stocks (including | Freetrade for _all the US stocks_ right now). Hard to | quantify the magnitude of the impact, though. | dls2016 wrote: | > Ristricting trading is a way of managing risk. | | So when the low probability event actually happens, should I | be happy to have had my trading privileges revoked and my | risk managed for me? | klodolph wrote: | Robinhood managing its own risk, not yours. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >What are the odds of a flash crash | | Barely more than zero because there are market circuit breakers | now and broker dealers are supposed to be limiting order flow | so that HFTs can't be submitting huge numbers of orders that | are massively far away from what the security is trading at. Of | course some broker dealers play much faster and looser than | others but if shit really hits the fan the circuit breaker | catches it. | hehehaha wrote: | Zero. They actually learned their lessons from the past decade | and have guard rails in place. | Miner49er wrote: | The clearinghouses and brokers likely won't let it happen. | They'll step in and stop buying again if that's what it takes. | | But if they are stopped from doing that, then it certainly | could happen. I think the odds are greater then most might give | it credit. | adriancr wrote: | A few rants that i tried answering to someone before him removing | post. | | Free speech is allowed. | | Prosecuting people for free speech is impossible. | | A bunch of imbeciles posting on forums is similar to a bunch of | imbeciles on CNBC arguing that price is too high. | | A hedge fund with 12 billion dollars shorting 140% of a stock and | then using media to drive price to 0 is illegal. Also more then | idiotic since they caused the whole problem to begin with. | Without their greed there would be no short squeez, gamestop | would have been at 50-60 or whatever fair market value instead of | suppressed 5-6 dollars a long time ago. | | The only illegal thing initially was hedge funds. | | They then got punished and went to do other illegal things like | wash sales, stopping people from buying, collusion with | supposedly neutral market makers. | | Whatever happens I hope the people above go broke first, | investors that got conned go after their personal belongings for | breaking fiduciary and afterwards spend a long time in jail. | robocat wrote: | > A hedge fund with 12 billion dollars shorting 140% of a stock | | I am fairly sure that one fund shorting 140% would have the SEC | on your back (that would count as market manipulation). | | A comment somewhere mentioned that Melvin had shorted 14%. | | Does anyone have some facts here? | adriancr wrote: | > A comment somewhere mentioned that Melvin had shorted 14%. | | How did they lose 3 billion at 65$ with just 14%? | | I call bullshit on that :) | threedots wrote: | I mean you can just do the maths, no? They probably had a | few hundred million position (maybe larger) with an entry | cost under <10$. There may be some puts in there too which | will have been a total loss. | adriancr wrote: | Ok, let's assume they shorted at 10$, they lost 3 Billion | at 65$ (and say they closed the position) | | So, the stock needed to be bought back was worth 3 | billion at 65$, reduce the 10$ per share it was shorted | at and you get 3000M/55 = 54M shares. | | Total stock float of GME is ~64M, so the short % was ~80% | | You see how it's way off of the 14%? (and close to | impossible to close out of?) | | If they did not get out then they would be very bankrupt | right now. | threedots wrote: | If they bought in at 10 and sold between 50-100 if they | owned 14% of the free float they would have lost 0.5-1bn. | That assumes they didn't increase exposure as the price | went up and it ignores the borrow cost. | | They then lost a bunch of money on options the exact | amount of which we don't know. They also lost a whole | bunch of money on other positions going against them | which we don't know but can guess at. | | To get to a 3bn loss (which btw is just a guessed number | based on how much new capital they took)you probably only | need to assume they are down around 10% on the rest of | the short book (ex GME) which under the circumstances is | entirely plausible. That assumes they run something like | 200% gross exposure with an evenly balanced book with | 12.5bn aum. | | I'm not sure where the conspiracy is here. 3bn is a huge | number to lose in a week but it looks roughly right given | what happened and it's not exactly unprecedented either. | gruez wrote: | >Free speech is allowed. | | >Prosecuting people for free speech is impossible. | | Are you suggesting that pump and dumps legal because "free | speech"? | | >A hedge fund with 12 billion dollars shorting 140% of a stock | and then using media to drive price to 0 is illegal. | | What is the relevant legislation preventing someone from | shorting "too much"? Furthermore, prior to this debacle I | certainly haven't heard of GME in the media aside from some | passing references. Therefore I'm skeptical of your narrative | that the hedge funds were somehow using the media to crash GME | prices. | adriancr wrote: | > Are you suggesting that pump and dumps legal because "free | speech"? | | Where's the pump and dump?, This is a short squeeze due to | Melvin Capitals 140% short and people buying due to initially | Cohen joining. Same as for VW a long time ago. Now it's just | because people want to buy... Hell I did so as well at recent | prices as I think with a nice stock offering GME can get to a | 500 fair market value easily. Que in some partnership with | Tesla for 'TeslaStop' gaming while charging and they'll be | good. | | > What is the relevant legislation preventing someone from | shorting "too much"? | | Look it up under market manipulation. A oversized hedge fund | overselling a stock will certainly be able to set the price | where they want and then profit. | gruez wrote: | >Where's the pump and dump? | | Whether this specific instance counts as a pump and dump is | irrelevant. The point is that it's illegal and "free | speech" isn't a valid defense. Furthermore, comments | elsewhere in this thread have mentioned that intentionally | causing a short squeeze is also illegal. | | >Look it up under market manipulation. A oversized hedge | fund overselling a stock will certainly be able to set the | price where they want and then profit. | | And the same isn't true of the people in WSB gobbling up | GME? | adriancr wrote: | > And the same isn't true of the people in WSB gobbling | up GME? | | If people like the stock and buy it what can you do about | it?, prevent them from buying same as robinhood? | | These individual investors are not putting in market | moving ammounts. | | This is different from a hedge fund dumping a stock, | driving price down then bankrupting a company. | floor2 wrote: | Essentially none of what is written in your "rants" is | factually accurate, unless by calling it out you meant to make | clear that these were emotional ramblings unrelated to reality. | | Neutral analysts on CNBC providing commentary is pretty | different than someone with a financial stake trying to pump up | a stock they own to maximize their profit. | | There is no evidence that any of the major funds involved in | shorting have done anything illegal. | | There's nothing illegal about a wash sale, wash sales are just | a minor technicality around how cost basis is calculated for | tax purposes. | | People figured out they could exploit a fund that was | overexposed in a trade and did so. We don't need all the | conspiracies and class warfare. Greedy retail traders took some | money from some greedy hedge funds, that's the whole story, it | doesn't need to be more than that. | adriancr wrote: | > Neutral analysts on CNBC | | This is amusing, check out interview with Chamath then | everything else covered. It's even more amusing when Cramer | of all people was the voice of reason. | | > There is no evidence that any of the major funds involved | in shorting have done anything illegal. | | We will see through class action lawsuit against robinhood | and SEC investigations. | | > There's nothing illegal about a wash sale, | | Used the wrong term, I meant the massive sell order (while | people were not allowed to buy) trading halt, sell order | again, trading halt, a few times to trigger stop losses then | price magically goes back up where it was and the sell orders | evaporated... | | > it doesn't need to be more than that. | | Disagree, some investigations are warranted as to how this | was allowed to happen. (I'm assuming investors in hedge fund | arent happy either at 3 billion loss that we know of) As well | as general practices and the dirty tactics employed recently | vga805 wrote: | "Neutral analysts on CNBC providing commentary" | | lol. okay. | realmod wrote: | I also believed that most of the shorts were naked, but the | director of S3partner clearly explained how this was not the | case. One stock can be shorted multiple times which is what | causes the SI% to be over 100%. A lends to B, B sells to C, C | lends to D and so forth. Two shorters (B,D) but only 1 original | stock. | | And Robinhoods closure of the trade seems reasonable in | retrospect as well. If the clearing house required a higher | collateral to clear trades on those tickers due to their | volatility and RH did not have the liquidity to provide it then | blocking the purchase of those tickers seems fair. | | I can't really see anything illegal about the actions of the | traders or the brokerages like Robinhood and Webull. | adriancr wrote: | You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but is | that legal?, does SEC allow that?, nobody is concerned that | if there is a short squeeze there is no chance in hell to | close out? (like we are seeing here) | | The point I tried to make was - this short was done to drive | price down to zero (it can do that with that large of a | position) in collusion with negative media reports from | friends... That is manipulation. And they got caught with | their pants down. | | I'm also not convinced on no naked shorts, we'll see... | | As for robinhoods closure of trade, they only disabled buy, | not sale... as for reason, are you speculating? I did not see | any clearing house comment. This was brought up by Cuomo as | well in interview. | | As for illegal on robinhoods part, we'll see, there will | likely be an investigation. Especially since they are owned | by the company that bailed Melvin Capital out. | andylei wrote: | > You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but | is that legal?, does SEC allow that? | | Yes. As someone lending out a share (for someone else to | short), you can't know whether the person you bought it | from had borrowed it to sell it to you. | | Let's say you bought a share of stock. Can you lend it to | someone for them to short sell? Of course. You own the | share, regardless of how many people it passed through to | get to you. | realmod wrote: | The same director noted that the SI%, according to their | way of calculating*, is actually at 55% (still very high). | And like the poster below stated, one cannot really know | the difference between a borrowed and "ordinary" stock . | | Webull came out and clearly stated that their clearinghouse | had issues with putting up collateral for the tickers and | thus had to shut them down [0]. And while Robinhood has not | come out directly and said it was due to liquidity, one can | easily gather that from the statements they put out, the | new funding they needed, and lastly the fact that DTCC | required higher collateral for those tickers. | | [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading- | restrictions-b... | | * It includes all tradeable share. So in the case of the | example, normal SI% states 2:1, two shorters and one | original share. Their way is 2:3 which is, 2 shorters (B,D) | and 3 longs (A,C,E) | adriancr wrote: | > And while Robinhood has not come out directly | | So you were speculating on robinhood reason. | | > The same director noted that the SI%, according to | their way of calculation, is actually at 55% | | Thanks, I'll check that out, weird since there are | contradicting stories likely due to that short positions | are not disclosed. | UncleMeat wrote: | Imagine an alternative universe. WSB decides that shorting | some company they hate is a good idea. But wait, it has | already been shorted up to 99% by hedge funds! No more | shorting allowed. SEC rules. | | Same backlash about a "rigged" system. | adriancr wrote: | You are aware everyone else except retail was allowed to | buy right? | | You are aware hedge funds did just that after doing wash | sales to trigger stop losses. | | It was funny at one point bid ask spread was 120-5000 | UncleMeat wrote: | Yes that's what I'm saying. The same narrative ("wtf, | they are allowed to short but I'm not") arises in my | scenario. | adriancr wrote: | your scenario means everyone is disallowed from shorting. | Equal measure to market condition. You see it being | different from disallowing just retail buying? | | Oh and that already exists when there are no shares to | borrow. (in theory as they can naked short) | seabird wrote: | I'm not a domain expert, but it would seem that whether or | not something was sold naked is ultimately determined in the | instant that you are obligated to deliver -- not doing so is | a Failure to Deliver, which is when your problem actually | starts. | | The SEC has 170k recorded FTDs for GME in the second half of | December 2020: https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm | | GME has been on the NYSE Threshold list for months: | https://www.nyse.com/regulation/threshold-securities | | Multiple WSB users were aware of this public data and that | GME had high FTD rates in significantly more favourable | circumstances at least as early as October 2020: https://old. | reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/j0ckgf/reg_... https://o | ld.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/jbvwek/fail... | | There was no reason to _not_ be ass-naked or close to it on | the high end of GME call contract writing a few months ago. | They 've probably covered (at least partially) by now, but | that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. | andylei wrote: | > I'm not a domain expert, but it would seem that whether | or not something was sold naked is ultimately determined in | the instant that you are obligated to deliver | | No, this is not true. When you sell short (with some | exceptions for market makers), you are obligated to "find" | shares to borrow (called "locates"). Usually your broker | arranges this; any shares that you borrow cannot be lent to | someone else. If you do not have any borrowed shares (as | recorded by the broker), that is considered a "naked short | sell". | seabird wrote: | No idea why you're getting downvoted -- whether or not | you're able to do it depends on if you are one of those | exceptions and that is an important part I missed in my | original post. I _was_ referring to market makers, as I | think it goes without saying that a retail investor or | small firm will not be allowed to do something like write | a naked or near-naked call, but you know what they say | about assumptions. | adriancr wrote: | > you are obligated to "find" shares to borrow | | Unless you know... you just dont. Or you are big enough | to have an exception. | | Whats the punishment?, how will they find you? (you dont | need to disclose shorts) | realmod wrote: | E.g. A lends a share to B, B sells to C, C lends to D. | Now say another shorter, X, needs to cover their short | and thus buys a share from C, now for this trade to | settle C has to recall their share from D and then give | it to X, who would then use it to cover their short. If D | now fails to give back the share to C, then the trade | between C-D is FTD which would then cause X trade with | its borrower to be FTD since X needs C's share to settle | it. | | So they could have locates but still fail to settle. | Though, I'm not unequivocally excluding that _some_ naked | shorts may have happened. I just find it more plausible | than hedge funds and brokerages allowing huge amounts of | naked shorts, which are already illegal. | [deleted] | [deleted] | maxfurman wrote: | This statement seems like a big ball of nothing. Basically the | SEC is aware of what's happening (how could they not be?) and | maybe they'll do something about it or maybe they'll decide that | it's all within the law. | kgwgk wrote: | "Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal | securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own | securities." | | If GameStop management was thinking of selling some shares to the | public (or directly to those who really need shares to cover | their shorts) at some crazy price they'll have to be careful. | | AMC was lucky to have a lot of convertible debt outstanding which | has been converted without any action on their part. | ComputerGuru wrote: | American Airlines announced their intention to do just that | yesterday. I wonder what the SEC will have to say about it. | fartzzz wrote: | "Our core market infrastructure has proven resilient under the | weight of this week's extraordinary trading volumes" | | Most of the retail investors couldn't buy specific stocks on most | exchanges for some time (tastytrade, ib, rh etc). I wouldn't call | that "resilient". | my_usernam3 wrote: | We have 5 nines uptime on all our non crashed systems! | bredren wrote: | Not knowing how hard it is to provide the service fo their | "core market infrastructure," I couldn't tell if it was just a | self-complimentary way to boast or genuine technical feet. | | Regardless, the prominence of the note was strange and set an | immediate defensive tone. | | What made it really odd was the arc of tone to "Market | participants should be careful to avoid such activity." An | elegant threat. | rossdavidh wrote: | Is it my imagination, or did this SEC statement not actually, you | know, actually say anything, except "we're the SEC, and we're | going to do the thing that it's our job to do"? | underseacables wrote: | I can't help but think about Bill Ackerman when I see stories | about stock shorting and their dangers. Isn't this exactly what | Bill Ackerman did? He shorted Herbalife and then went on TV | (there's even a Netflix documentary) And he lost. How is that not | market manipulation? What if Ackerman did not have a position in | the company, would it not be market manipulation then? It seems | like what Reddit did was stand on a soapbox in the public square | and say buy the stock, | hong_kong wrote: | https://chiron-risk.com/when-is-shareholder-activism-actuall... | sjg007 wrote: | I look forward to Michael Lewis's next book on the subject. | swader999 wrote: | It is very difficult to not read this in the most cynical tone | imaginable. | OscarCunningham wrote: | There's been some speculation that what WSB are doing could be | market manipulation or otherwise illegal. The fact that this | statement only mention retail investors in the context of | protecting them makes me suspect that the SEC's not going for it. | nostrademons wrote: | Third paragraph: | | > In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the | facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that | is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market | participants should be careful to avoid such activity. | | "Market participants" here is referring to retail traders. | Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you're the | little guy, you're exempt from the law. It's like how the | capitol rioters were sure they were on the side of America but | the FBI (and half of America) sees things very differently. | | A lot of government regulation is about protecting the little | guy from other slightly more unscrupulous little guys. "The | public" is not a monolithic entity - folks can and do screw | each other over even when purporting to be part of the same | mass movement. | nend wrote: | Doesn't "retail investors" refer to any individual, non- | professional, investor? Sounds like to me the SEC is warning | any party involved in this, RH and WSB included. | pardonmesir wrote: | what are you talking about? the real fraud and market | manipulation was perpetrated by Robinhood and Shitadel when | they shut peoples' ability to buy the stock while still | allowing it to be sold. They know this is illegal but they were | betting on the fines being less than the losses. They need to | be taught a real lesson. Those responsible for this | intentional, flagrant violation of the most basic free market | principles should go.to.jail. | kapp_in_life wrote: | If anything Robinhood allowing people to continue buying | volatile assets while not being able to meet their clearing | house's requirements would be something to run them afoul of | the SEC. | [deleted] | jeffbee wrote: | Could be? It's an open, publicly-documented market manipulation | event. How can there be any question about it? You might decide | that this kind of manipulation is OK due to it's stated goals, | but that doesn't make it not manipulation. | qmmmur wrote: | People are free to purchase stock how they want to. If those | people collect together and discuss potentially profitable | strategies for trading who is to stop them? Do you think its | possible youve fallen ill to the rhetoric that this is bad | purely because the rich people didn't get their way? | kshacker wrote: | But people are not being allowed to purchase stock as they | want. Robinhood now allows you to buy a grand total of 5 | shares of GME. | spydum wrote: | that's a service delivery problem, just like when a | restaurant runs out of a popular dish. Go to another | broker. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | I have a general, all-purpose opposition to financial | trading that's about exploiting weird market structure | tricks to screw people over rather than expressing beliefs | about the value of the underlying things being traded. | Institutional traders too often get away with doing that | kind of thing, and I'm hardly losing sleep over the | particular targets of this campaign, but we can't let the | takeaway here be "it's fine as long as retail investors get | to play too". | jaywalk wrote: | Imagine calling the simple act of buying a stock | "exploiting weird market structure tricks to screw people | over" | blackearl wrote: | The issue with that argument is that it's really not | "it's fine as long as retail investors get to play too," | it's "it's fine _until_ retail investors get to play too" | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | The point is that it's _not_ fine. The institutional | investors who have historically said it was fine were | wrong. If the average retail investor comes away thinking | scummy tactics are cool now that you and I can use them, | it 'll be a disaster for the cause of real financial | reform. | avs733 wrote: | The SEC has some case studies on this that are really | itneresting... | | https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Cas. | .. | | The idea that there has to be behind the scenes coordination | (i.e., non-publically available communication/information) | runs pretty clearly through all of them, but IANASEC | willcipriano wrote: | >Could be? It's an open, publicly-documented market | manipulation event. | | Strange question, what's the bar for market manipulation? For | example if a company took out debt to buy their own stock in | order to drive up the price would that count? | jeffbee wrote: | If the company were to issue a statement that they believed | their actions would raise the share price, then yes. | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i | [deleted] | pbourke wrote: | So do everything up to specifically stating the effect | that you want, and it's not market manipulation? This is | the "emperor's new clothes" absurdity of this whole | system. | | The whole fucking market has been manipulated by various | parties this year, most notably by the Federal Reserve, | yet there's only a moral panic when some firefighter from | Long Island gets a little taste? | foolmeonce wrote: | Stock buy back is perfectly fine and its authorization is | usually announced in a press release. Hiding that you are | taking new debt to do just about anything would be illegal. | asimpletune wrote: | Persuading people that they should invest in X company for Y | reason is not market manipulation. People who take a short | position frequently announce their short publicly, with the | express aim of achieving their goals. | moolcool wrote: | I can't find any documentation that a short squeeze is | illegal. Can you? | TeMPOraL wrote: | It's in the SEC rules. | | "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." | | From https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm. | | It's an open question whether this case is more of a | natural occurrence or "a scheme to manipulate", given that | it's all randos who found a Schelling point and are now | hyping each other up. I think it's fair to say it's | unprecedented. | blackearl wrote: | If the SEC isn't going to litigate the naked short | selling that preceded this, it's really hard to not cry | hypocrisy. | OscarCunningham wrote: | Is there any actual evidence of naked short selling? The | only evidence I've seen people raising is that the total | value of the shorts was over 100%, but that can happen | completely legitimately if the people who buy from short | sellers allow the stock to be sold short a second (or | third, fourth, ...) time. | tolstoshev wrote: | I don't get why loaning out an already loaned stock is | legal. Short selling should be limited to first gen | loans. Otherwise it's like Beavis and Butthead in the | Candy Store episode where they keep loaning the same | dollar back and forth. | ComputerGuru wrote: | You seem to be under the impression that a stock can't be | shorted more than 100% without naked short selling. This | is not true. | Rapzid wrote: | Interesting.. WSB was 100% orchestrating a short squeeze. | They were telling anyone who would listen and in fact | using it to rationalize what they were doing.. | jaywalk wrote: | scheme (verb): make plans, especially in a devious way or | with intent to do something illegal or wrong. | | Discussing buying stock on a public forum is certainly | not devious, and although the goal is to cause short | positions to lose a bunch of money I would argue that | it's neither illegal nor wrong. | jeffbee wrote: | You could argue that but you'd be clearly wrong on | American law and jurisprudence. If the goal is to cause | other market participants to lose, that it specifically | against the letter of the law. | avereveard wrote: | "scheme to manipulate" is the keyword here, patting each | other on the back for riding market volatility on a forum | about stocks isn't neither novel nor illegal. | | it would be quite different if they were to coordinate | the sale moment or the sale prices; for the latter, I | don't see much coordination beyond memes, for the first | SEC might have a point and there's many posts walking a | thin line suggesting friday will be the day. | | however this is a billion dollar operation which include | many players and wide interference by multiple actors | ranging from unclear to blatant business relationships; I | wouldn't be surprised by anonymous plants joining wsb | trying to stir up a movement and coordinate sales/prices | to create a solid case where there is just a feeble | suspicion; and as a matter of fact there has been quite | many fresh accounts (either low karma, no posts in a long | time, no posts at all etc) joining in just to propose to | hold until a certain price or date is reached. | OscarCunningham wrote: | If I were the short-sellers I'd be a bit aggrieved at the | SEC not going after WSB here. | | People keep saying that the hedge funds 'knew what they | were getting into', and are therefore fair game. But they | could well have thought that they were protected by this | regulation. It's unlucky for them that they got squeezed | by loveable retail investors rather than another hedge | fund that the SEC would have no qualms about prosecuting. | | In the debate between the free market vs regulation, the | worst possible outcome is to have people thinking they | are protected by regulation when they in fact aren't. | willcipriano wrote: | The shorters should form a class action and sue wall | street bets, I'm sure a 5 dollar check in 3 years and a | year of free stonk advice will cover it right? | jsmith45 wrote: | Wall street bets is not an organization, and does not | really even have a defined membership, and I've never | heard of a court case with a class as a defendant. But I | suppose that would be a really amusing circus show. Class | of shorters vs class of buyers. | [deleted] | seigando wrote: | Oh dear, those poor hedge funds. | floor2 wrote: | This worldview seems like one of the biggest problems | facing America right now. | | We should strive for equal rules and justice for all, | rather than first deciding how likeable or sympathetic | the parties involved are and then changing the | interpretation of rules to favor the group we perceive as | being inherently more deserving of our favoritism. | seigando wrote: | The rules were written, and have been interpreted with | certain perceptions of 'who is deserving'. To claim that | they weren't is at best ignorant. | jchook wrote: | Everyone always told me, "don't invest what you can't | afford to lose" and that risk mitigation is paramount. | | Potentially tanking your firm on a gamble seems reckless | and totally ignores the fundamentals of trading. | hansvm wrote: | There's a bit of nuance. We're using the word "manipulation" | to mean two different things -- one is the colloquial | meaning, and yes it's very obvious that the price was | manipulated in that sense. As far as the legal definition of | manipulation is concerned though, we haven't necessarily met | all the requirements. | bwilliams18 wrote: | Matt Levine did a pretty good job explaining why it probably | doesn't fit the traditional definition of market manipulation | in his newsletter on Tuesday[1], see the second section | titled "But is it securities fraud?" | | [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will | -w... | wslh wrote: | > It's an open, publicly-documented market manipulation | event. | | I understand that if someone publicly give you a financial | strategy that is sound and it is not based on a ponzi then it | is a recommendation. | Dirlewanger wrote: | Ever think that they just like the stock? | amirhirsch wrote: | It kinda feels like that to me. The nostalgia value of | owning 1 share of GameStop is pretty important considering | the joy that going to that store brought to me as a child. | I can totally understand if 20 million people also want in, | especially given the idea that we're fighting against a | short position to cause a squeeze. It's like a dumb feel- | good movie where we had a bake-sale and everyone buys a | cookie for an unreasonable price to help our favorite local | grocery store avoid bankruptcy by the evil liquidators who | want to turn it into a Walmart. | jeffbee wrote: | That's the thing: there is NO QUESTION as to the motives of | the r/wsb traders. They are overtly conspiring to raise the | price of shares in order to force specific parties to buy | it. That's manipulation! | TheCapn wrote: | >force specific parties to buy it | | I think they forced themselves to buy it by taking the | short position they did. | RHSeeger wrote: | Is it illegal to corner the market on a product because | you know someone else is going to need to buy it, so you | can charge them a lot because they must buy from you? It | seems like what is being done is pretty much this; just | for a large definition of "you". | jeffbee wrote: | Yes, it is broadly illegal to corner or attempt to corner | any market, and the law directs the CFTC to step in and | and void commodities contracts or take whatever other | actions it deems appropriate when it finds that a market | has been destabilized. See 7 USC 12a(9). | Dirlewanger wrote: | May be for some of them. People invest for all sorts of | reasons besides the "fundamentals", you know. | | Tell me: what do you think Melvin's intentions were for | shorting a dying company's stock for several billion? | jeffbee wrote: | To raise cash? Shorting a company in terminal decline, | but that will never die and will live on the pink sheets | forever, is a great way to take a gain without ever | having to pay the taxes. | Dirlewanger wrote: | And you just described a form of market manipulation. | Except that we can't know Melvin's true motives because | for some weird reason, hedge funds don't have to make | their methodologies public. | | So why are you getting mad that retail investors are | engaging in the same practices that hedge funds can do | with impunity? | jeffbee wrote: | No? Your folk definition of "manipulation" isn't | furthering this discussion. | ceejayoz wrote: | It's manipulation, but is it _illegal_ manipulation? | | Remember, it's perfectly legal for a hedge fund to open a | short position, and then release a big expose of the | company that tanks its stock price. | | For a prominent recent example: | https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/ | [deleted] | gnfargbl wrote: | Whether or not it is market manipulation, who do you think | the SEC could realistically go after here? | jeffbee wrote: | Maybe one or two specific individuals, but you're right in | general. That's the part that frightens me the most here. | The tactics that are being used are equivalent to the ones | used by sideshow street racers and political riots: if we | get thousands of individuals to break the law at the same | time and place then law enforcement will be ineffective. | gnfargbl wrote: | It certainly _feels_ like an organized riot, but I'm not | 100% sure that it is. In a riot, there are organizers and | instigators, and then there is a mob who follows them. | Here, I'm not really sure that the organizers exist: the | closest thing I can see is the Reddit user | DeepFuckingValue, and all they do is post screenshots of | their position in GME without futher comment. And have | been doing so for the best part of a year. | | The mob seems to have largely formed itself. | hhhar42 wrote: | You really need to stop accusing thousands of people of | lawbreaking when several actual securities lawyers with | backgrounds in actual manipulation litigation have said | it isn't as cut and dry as you think. Tying the activity | to the riots and suggesting similar organization is also | beyond the pale. You have cited neither of those | positions throughout your ranting here and they're | harmful speculation. | | Your commentary in this thread is over the top. I'd use a | term you already have (edit: and deleted, looks like) | which definitely applies, but I'm not stooping there, and | you're probably on your way to a flag for it anyway. I | suggest you step back from HN for a few minutes, at | least. | nsonha wrote: | Reddit or any future platform hosting WSB and the like, | same logic that took Parlor out of biz. | moosey wrote: | Applying this logic, perhaps we can get "professional" stock | ... manipulators off the TV. CNBC can go away entirely. | Marketing speak would be replaced with value charts. Ban all | forums that discuss specific stock values. | | Then prevent people from buying stocks in groups. Mutual | funds, ETFs, etc... all of these abstractions on | abstractions, we can throw them away. The more abstractions | we throw away, the closer we get to what all this should | actually be meant to serve; people. | NoOneNew wrote: | Absolutely. I mean, what's different now in comparison to | Ackman shorting hotels then going on CNBC and saying hotels | are going to burn financially? Except for the fact it's one | rich guy compared to thousands (maybe millions?) of not so | rich folks. | mrlala wrote: | Well.. I think the difference is that if there are | literally millions of people immediately acting in a | certain fashion (suddenly buying up a specific stock) in | a coordinate fashion- that has a very different effect | than a small number of large investors taking a bet. | | I'm not defending the bullshit that is CNBC and | 'professional stock pickers' and crap, but it ends up to | be a very different thing. Not saying better or worse, | but certainly different. | [deleted] | ericmay wrote: | Which is one take, certainly. But the problem is once you say | that this is a market manipulation event you run into other | issues. | | Is going on CNBC and talking about the strength of a company | that you invested in market manipulation? Before this blew up | you certainly had more reach. | | Is posting "research" or holding a conference call and | telling people a company is garbage while you have the | company shorted market manipulation? What about when you | short a company and sell a ton of shares to induce panic? | What about algorithms that are created to trade shares to | reach a certain profitable price based on internal | holdings/analysis? | | Here's another thing - if WallStreetBets was incorporated | into a hedge fund and took a huge long position is that | market manipulation? It seems to me the main difference is | that they aren't behind closed doors talking privately in a | legal fiction called a company that is really the problem | here... | | You have to define what you mean by manipulating the market | and apply that equally under the eyes of the law. The fact | that this was done publicly makes it all the more | interesting. Had it been done behind closed doors (like so | many things are on Wall Street) it would have been an open | and shut case, but it wasn't. | | So sure, let's say it's a market manipulation event. Ok. Can | you tell me what isn't a market manipulation event? | jeffbee wrote: | You are not the first person to ponder these questions. | There is a great deal of jurisprudence on these topics. Any | market participant firm's compliance desk can readily | answer all of them. | acover wrote: | If wallstreetbets was a hedge fund and they bought all of | GME to cause a short squeeze then that is market | manipulation - this has been settled [0]. | | [0] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-159 | | Edit: litigated to settled | ordinaryradical wrote: | If you actually read that link that case is so | extraordinarily different than the reality of what's | happening today I don't know how you can argue this in | good faith. | acover wrote: | > I don't know how you can argue this in good faith | | I'm not an expert and am rather dumb. | | What do you think the differences are? | | Differences: | | * One hedge fund versus a multitude of investors | | * Owning all the securities vs only a portion | | The similarities are: | | * Intentionally buying all the stock to cause a short | squeeze | | * Explicitly recalling borrowed shares to cause a short | squeeze | | To be clear, I'm not arguing that what wallstreetbets is | doing is illegal but something fairly similar is. I | thought an actual example of market manipulation was | relevant to the conversation. | ordinaryradical wrote: | A short squeeze in and of itself is not illegal. The | squeezers were not prosecuted in 2008 when they held onto | VW even though it briefly became the most valuable stock | in the world. Seeing an opportunity to advantage oneself | of a bad short position is just trading, nothing fancier | than that. | | The Falcone case is much more complicated because it was | a single person buying the entirety of the market. Much | weirder mechanics at play. Squeezes are always carried | out through the self-interest of uncoordinated parties, | be they retail investors or firms. | acover wrote: | Note that the comment I replied to introduced the idea of | treating wallstreetbets as a single hedge fund. | | > if WallStreetBets was incorporated into a hedge fund | and took a huge long position is that market | manipulation? | | So your main point of contention with me for bringing up | unrelated information was already brought up. | ericmay wrote: | If WSB was a hedge fund they just have to buy some of GME | - not all or even too much. Other hedge funds could buy | some too. | | Just have a "dinner conversation" about it. | | Just like you and a few hedge funds can get together and | collectively short GameStop and other companies... as | they are doing now. | | There's no rule that I know of that says only one entity | can make a specific investment. | | -edit- | | Don't forget that hedge funds ARE on the other side of | this trade. WSB and retail do not have the ability to | move this solely on their own. I wonder how long until | they're on CNBC/Bloomberg "we saw a great opportunity in | the market and executed our position well". If it's | market manipulation - was it market manipulation to even | have heard about WSB and entered the trade? WSB is a nice | scapegoat for the real money that caught these hedge | funds in a bad position. Didn't take long before WSB | became alt-right, white supremacist, market | manipulators... etc. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | > Just have a "dinner conversation" about it. | | This would be illegal I think. | trsohmers wrote: | It isn't. Hedge fund managers have "idea dinners" with | dozens of their friends all the time to discuss what | plays they are thinking... they frequently also bring in | guests that represent companies, or even | politicians/former politicians to discuss lobbying | strategies to keep this exact type of collusion and | market manipulation legal for them. | | But as soon as a bunch of the dreaded "retail investors" | start doing it in the open, Wall Street calls on K Street | to save them. | lukeramsden wrote: | This is well known the be common practice and very much | not punished. | Armisael16 wrote: | It is not: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hedgefunds- | probe-exclusiv... | CTDOCodebases wrote: | It could be argued that r/wallstreetbets is a public | forum. Anyone can join. Think of it like a virtual | conference room. | | If I walk into this room and yell "Everybody buy GME to | screw the hedge funds" am I engaging in market | manipulation? There is no formal or informal agreement to | do so if someone says "ok great idea" and go buys GME. | | Besides how are they going to enforce the laws? Match IPs | to ISPs and extradite all the thousands if not millions | of people across the world who bough stock? If a fine is | issued do they just divide it up by the number of people | who commented in wallstreetbets and held stock? Or is | every person fined individually? | | How is this worse than the sell walls that hedge funds | use to deflate a share price? | | The truth of the matter is the SEC dropped the ball. They | were probably too busy having a wank while on pornhub | [0]. | | In December as soon as the share price started to rise | GME was placed on the NYSE threshold securities list for | large numbers of "failure to deliver". Keep in mind it | had entered this same list earlier in the year. Followers | of wallstreetbets were suspicious and believed that | illegal naked short selling was occurring so they | informed the SEC [1]. | | Then a few weeks later the stock rose 10% then 50% the | next day leaving the call options ITM on a Friday | afternoon. What did the SEC do? They sat on their hands | over the weekend instead of suspending trading of the | stock and performing an investigation. | | [0] https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/sec-pornography- | employees-spe... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetb | ets/comments/kr98ym/gme_... | mmd45 wrote: | well, the case reached a settlement so i would not say it | was litigated in the sense of establishing case law or | legal precedent. | | it's interesting- it reads as though harbinger bought | bonds and demanded delivery. can you imagine it! asking | to take possession of the thing you just bought is | painted as manipulation!!! | hogFeast wrote: | You realise that all of this stuff has specific rules. | There are specific rules about posting research, there are | specific rules about media (newspapers and TV), there are | specific rules about algorithms (I will answer your | questions: no, no, no, no...the last question is...odd, if | you know about sure-win algos then you must be very rich). | | And all of this stuff has happened before, it happened in | 2000, lots of people went on bulletin boards, and some | ended up going to jail for market manipulation. The | difference between doing it publicly and privately is huge, | that is a necessary component of market manipulation | (generally speaking, market manipulation isn't very | effective if you don't have anyone to baghold for you). | ericmay wrote: | I'm more of a "spirit of the thing" than "this is what | the text says" kind of guy. | | I'd argue that those things aren't fundamentally | different than anything going on via WSB (assuming no bot | accounts saying buy buy buy or something similar). | | I think the difference is that for these other items | there's nobody around to measure the impact. | hogFeast wrote: | No. If you do any of those things wrong then you will get | charged. | | There aren't bot accounts. There are people telling other | people to buy who are probably selling (there is a reason | why DFV isn't posting anything but account updates). No | conpsiracy theory around bots, the people manipulating | the market are there, they are posting on a public forum. | It doesn't get more cut and dry. | ericmay wrote: | I just don't see a difference in manipulating the markets | through official channels versus unofficial channels. If | CNBC wants to have me or reddit user r/deepfuckingvalue | (Keith Gill) on their platform instead of WSB sure I'll | give them some stock picks too. | jaywalk wrote: | I'm certainly no expert in the rules at play here, but I | can't fathom how posting on a public forum and saying | "let's all go buy $GME and screw these hedge fund guys!" | would not be absolutely protected by the First Amendment. | There's no fraud or anything like that, and you're not | posting anything false or misleading about the company. | | If a bunch of people feel like it's a good idea and want | to join in, then it is what it is. | hogFeast wrote: | Because there is the first amendment...and there is | securities fraud. You are saying: anything that anyone | says at any time has no legal consequence because of the | first amendment...no. | | Misleading stuff is being posted on wsb. And some people | are likely not being honest about what they are doing | (i.e. telling people to buy when they are selling). This | is how pump and dumps work. If you buy a stock worth $5 | for $300...your only option is to sell to someone who | knows nothing. That is what it is happening now. | | The stuff about hedge funds only came later, it is funny | that people are citing this now (as ever, financial | markets and ex-post rationalisations...human reasoning is | amazing). All this stuff about revolutions against | bankers, and the wealthy, and politicans leaping onto | it...lol. The funniest thing about this is that people | who have the least knowledge believe they need protection | the least...and when this blows up, they will still say | it is rigged. Oh well. Plus ca change. | Tenoke wrote: | A SEC investigation will take time. I wouldn't judge much based | on their general initial statement. | balozi wrote: | Well... they will start by redefining "market manipulation" to | encompass all activity they now consider disruptive (also | suitably redefined). This is America today. | datavirtue wrote: | This. Man walks into a hardware store and buys a Milwaukee | drill. Bam, supply reduced, market manipulated. | PeterisP wrote: | There's no need for SEC to redefine market manipulation - | IMHO the "pumping" activity of at least some WSB activists | would perfectly match the existing legal definition of market | manipulation as written to prevent historical "boiler room" | type activities. | | On the other hand, in these discussions I have seen a bunch | of assertions that what the shorting hedge funds or HFTs are | doing is "market manipulation" - now _that_ is an attempt to | redefine market manipulation to something entirely different | than what it is /was. | nsonha wrote: | Your point? Can disruptive ever be good? Other than in SV | jargons? | bradstewart wrote: | Good for who? Why does an event have to be good or bad? | csomar wrote: | It's harder to pursue this if there were hundreds of thousands | involved. Maybe they'll go for the people who organized this, | or the one who profited massively for it. But I don't see it | possible to sue a million person. | TheAdamist wrote: | crowd sourcing / gig working a pump n dump instead of running a | boiler room operation. | | Just add gig work to anything and rules no longer apply. | nrmitchi wrote: | I don't think it's fair here to assume that by "retail | investors" the SEC means _all_ retail investors. Retail is not | one giant group. | | It is possible for one group of retail (lets say the original | WSBs crowd) to take illegal action that harms _other_ retail | investors. | | Taking action to protect the mass of retail does not mean that | all of retail is immediately in the clear. | einpoklum wrote: | > extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose | investors to rapid and severe losses | | Isn't that the definition of extreme stock volatility? Extreme | height volatility has the potential to expose you to severe | falls. | | > extreme stock price volatility has the potential to ... | undermine market confidence. | | Confidence in what, exactly? | | > As always, the Commission will work to protect investors, to | maintain fair ... markets, | | I don't see what's fair about the stock market. | ummonk wrote: | "Our core market infrastructure has proven resilient under the | weight of this week's extraordinary trading volumes." - this is | flat out false. The market infrastructure was supposedly unable | to handle the desired buy volumes under high volatility on meme | stocks, resulting in multiple retail brokerages disabling | purchases of the meme stocks. | williesleg wrote: | Put on your face diaper. | numair wrote: | Okay kids, story time. | | After the crash of 2008, I spent some time working with Dick | Fuld. Yes, the former head of Lehman Brothers. Yes, the one | people describe as "disgraced," among other terms. Here's the | irony, though -- Dick was one of the only people I encountered at | that level of business/finance who _wasn't_ a scumbag. Unlike so | many virtue-signaling Silicon Valley darlings, the guy behind the | curtain was an honorable dude. And again, that's a direct account | from someone who has no vested interest or a book to sell or | anything of that sort. | | Dick and I worked closely together, one on one. After enough | time, after he trusted me, I finally got to ask him about what | the hell actually happened. The man had a ton of PTSD -- and | probably still does -- but eventually it became clear that the | real story was completely, utterly, unbelievably stupid. | | Yes, Lehman was doing a bunch of stupid stuff, and the management | under Dick were behaving like cowboys. But at the end of the day, | that was the entire market at that time. What sunk Lehman was, in | the end, a decision by all of the other big banks and the | regulators that they'd let Lehman die because of something that | might be best summarized as "lol idk sorry Dick but we're just | gonna let you go and let the Fed bail the rest of us out sorry | bro lol." Like really. _That's_ how it went behind those closed | doors in the lairs of the lizards that control the universe. | Lehman had already suffered near-death in 1994 -- the world has | now forgotten that Dick was the hero that saved the firm back | then -- and now it was to be made a sacrificial lamb for everyone | else's benefit. | | Why am I telling you this story? What is the point? Well, what I | am trying to say is that these supposed "adults in the room" who | are so much smarter and better than the the "retail investors" | are pretty much the same sort of immature, self-centered children | as the other side. The difference is, they've got the regulators | and the politicians in their pockets. So when they say "lol oops" | and _literally blow up the global economy to save face_ , nothing | happens to them. But for some reason when it's the retail guys, a | moral panic ensues. | | In my eyes, the Internet-connected retail investor is learning | the power of what I call "massively multiplayer liquidity." Yes, | there's some growing pains, but let's not kill this wild new | phenomenon before we learn what it can do. Because, from what | I've seen from the other side of things, I doubt these self- | styled "retards" will ever end up as depraved and corrupt as the | people they're disrupting. | | Play ball, kids. And as Dick always used to say, "don't get left | with nothing other than a ham sandwich." | kypro wrote: | Can someone explain why my perspective is wrong on hedgefunds | please? | | My understanding is that the GFC happened because the whole | economy was levered to hell. At the risk of referencing the big | short, there was a scene in that film where a stripper has | levered herself up so much she owns five home. The reason the | GFC happened was in reality because average people were levered | up on real estate and couldn't afford their repayments. | | I fully understand that the financial system also took on too | much risk and many understood those risks, but the narrative | that hedgefunds are entirely to blame for the GFC, and that | they were the only ones being irresponsible with leverage, is | surely wrong? | | If the blame was with anyone it should be the regulators... Why | were individuals and hedgefunds able to take so much risk? In | the absent of regulation individuals and hedgefunds should be | expected to take maximum risk for their own gain. Just like how | WSBs did when they were all exploiting the infinite leverage | glitch. | | Another thing that I don't think is true here is that the | government is only there for the hedgefunds... If this last | year has proven anything it's that the government is perfectly | wiling to bail out individuals if they feel it's necessary to | save the economy. And if the financial system is so rigged | against individuals then isn't it odd how those individuals | seem to be so able to destroy the hedgefunds with relative ease | from a free smart phone app? | | I'm not trying to be edgy, I genuinely don't understand why | people seem to blame hedgefunds for every inequality problem in | society. | caffeine wrote: | This "wild new phenomenon" is just boring old market | manipulation. The only thing new about it is that the | perpetrator is a subreddit instead of a licensed broker/dealer | or other regulated entity. | | The appropriate thing to do is for the SEC to subpoena Reddit | and RobinHood, correlate trades with posts to prove intent to | manipulate the price (which IS illegal), and charge every | individual with market manipulation. | | Just like any other individuals guilty of market manipulation | (Libor riggers, Navinder Sarao, etc). | | Robinhood should probably also be investigated for abetting | this, although it's a gray area. | fnimick wrote: | 100% this. Price manipulation to trigger a short squeeze is | explicitly illegal. | https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm section 7. | | Anyone who told others to buy and hold with promises of short | covering and higher prices is party to market manipulation, | and it is absolutely, definitely illegal. Whether they'll be | able to unmask and charge people behind the anonymity of WSB | is another question though. | Ghostt8117 wrote: | Charge everyone with market manipulation the same way that | everyone who caused the 2008 recession was charged? Sincere | question, because if they decide to charge individual | investors who commented on a Reddit thread with market | manipulation after my generation witnessed the downfall of | the economy due to sheer lies and blatant manipulation by | banks, with no major charges against anyone of importance, I, | at least, will be very angry. | caffeine wrote: | I am not against charging certain actors in the 2008 crisis | with fraud and manipulation either. | | The 2008 recession is not really a comparable event to the | current GME short squeeze. It was rather a broad series of | events, most of which were unfortunately legal, some of | which were probably not. | | In that case I would be in favour of charging the ratings | agencies with fraud, and possibly the financial regulators | with gross incompetence. | | Edit: I don't see it as "big guys vs small guys". I see it | as "law abiding people vs not". | | So my reaction is not "its unfair to prosecute the little | guy," but rather "we didnt get those criminals but at least | we can get these criminals." | throwaway2048 wrote: | its funny how its always a certain class of people "we | didn't get", the answer isn't to shrug your shoulders and | say oh well. | morlockabove wrote: | What a very convenient point of view for the people above | the law. I hope they're passing some of their gains on to | you. | IMTDb wrote: | > the management under Dick were behaving like cowboys | | Exactly. and that's why they went under. Let's look at all | possibilities : | | - Maybe Dick knew that the management under him was behaving | like cowboys, and tried to stop it. Then that's sad, but so far | no one seem to have given any tangible proof that this was the | case. | | - Maybe Dick knew the that the management under him was | behaving like cowboys, and did not tried to stop it. And he got | what he deserved. | | - Maybe Dick just did not realize that the management under him | was behaving like cowboys. Then the company he was a part of | got what it deserved for putting that man - who was not | competent enough to realize what was going on - in a position | of power. | | - Maybe Dick did not realize that the management under him was | behaving like cowboys. But the "company policy" prevented him | from acting. Then he should have left. You don't reach such | positions without playing the game. | | Maybe Lehman was not the only one doing all of that. But Lehman | was definitely one. As such they maybe should not have been the | only one to die, but they definitely deserved what they got. I | don't buy the "I was a clueless nice guy that got caught in the | middle of it" story. He's not sorry he did it, he's only sorry | he got caught, otherwise he would just have left sooner. | claw_howitzer wrote: | > I doubt these self-styled "retards" will ever end up as | depraved and corrupt as the people they're disrupting. | | But they sure would like to be. I've seen WSB. The entire | system is selecting for sociopoaths. | selectodude wrote: | He conveniently left out the fact that Lehman was the only bank | that wasn't helpful during the collapse of Long Term Capital | Management, not that it changes anything. Basically the other | banks and the NY Fed decided to send a fuck you for not | cooperating ten years prior. | briefcomment wrote: | > "these supposed "adults in the room" who are so much smarter | and better than the the "retail investors" are pretty much the | same sort of immature, self-centered children as the other | side. The difference is, they've got the regulators and the | politicians in their pockets." | | Absolutely. | | Dick and Trump are examples of scapegoats. Throw someone under | the bus publicly, so you can continue doing what you're doing | while the public is busy staring at the spectacle. | mindslight wrote: | I don't know how it's possible to spin someone who made many | public statements disrupting our society's pandemic response | from a position of high authority as a mere "scapegoat", but | at this point I'm no longer amazed. | heimatau wrote: | I find this refreshing actually. | | What reason? Because it demystifies the room. It pulls the veil | off and we get to see behind the curtain. | | Strangely enough, I had a fleeting thought that this is why few | firms went under and most got bailed out. I actually had this | thought after watching the Big Short or another Wall Street | movie about the 2008 crash. I thought that it was strange that | Lehman was the odd one out and it struck me as a frat party. | Only the cool kids survive. | | @numair, you sound very candid and forthright. I appreciate it. | I find it's difficult for people to mask their tone and reading | this honest tone is refreshing. I wish you success in your | endeavors. | kortilla wrote: | Wall Street 2 effectively has an enactment of the scene where | they all throw the one firm under the bus. | fallingknife wrote: | > "lol idk sorry Dick but we're just gonna let you go and let | the Fed bail the rest of us out sorry bro lol." Like really. | That's how it went behind those closed doors in the lairs of | the lizards that control the universe. | | Says Dick Fuld. I doubt that's true, though, because at the | time Lehman was going under, they didn't know that all the | other banks were going with them. Remember, the bailouts didn't | come until a few weeks later when the money market funds broke | the buck triggering $trillions of withdrawals in what would | essentially be a financial system wide run on the bank. The | regulators didn't like the idea that a failing bank should be | bailed out (as they shouldn't), and they couldn't find a merger | partner like they did with Bear Stearns, so they let it fail. | The bailouts didn't come until they realized that the fallout | from Lehman's failure would bring down the whole system. Yeah, | Dick Fuld wasn't really any different than any of the CEO's | that got a bailout, but to cast him as the good guy among the | group is ridiculous. | numair wrote: | The unforeseen side effects of what was meant to be a very | orderly and master-planned wind-down of one bank for the | benefit of all the others -- that speaks to the exact point I | was making about the ridiculous notion that these are mature, | all-knowing, all-wise adults. | | As far as good and bad people, well... The senior | $LARGE_CONSUMER_BANK Vice-President who told me how much he | loved the profit he was making off the overdraft fees he | thought were "an honest service" to his poorest customers, | with a huge smile on his face, was definitely a lot more evil | than Dick. | | But look, if you've had direct experiences with a bunch of | the CEOs and senior execs at these firms, feel free to | provide a counter! If you're basing things on journalist | accounts, however, you're going to be in for a surprise when | you learn who pays their bills and takes them on trips... | whimsicalism wrote: | > mature, all-knowing, all-wise adults. | | The market is incredibly complex. If you thought that | executives can _foresee_ the downstream effects of a given | market event because they are "all-knowing, all-wise", | then of course you are an idiot. | | But nobody you were arguing with even remotely thinks this. | Of _course_ , there is uncertainty. There was never going | to be a "very orderly" draw-down, but the issues from the | moral hazard of propping up Lehman were (and remain) a big | consideration when considering bailouts. | roenxi wrote: | > But nobody you were arguing with even remotely thinks | this. | | The SEC thinks this, the linked statement suggests | believe they can foresee rapid and severe losses that | normal traders can't. Someone in this argument likely | agrees with the SEC. | hogFeast wrote: | Dick Fuld has said that several times publicly, there are | interviews with the FCIC where he said that there was a | conspiracy against LEH, and almost every part of the meetings | at the NY Fed are public knowledge...you have no behind the | scenes knowledge (you sound like every person: I met X who did | Y terrible thing, he isn't actually a bad guy, I am going to | ignore all the public information about X and prioritise my | super special "insider" knowledge). | | I will ask you a different question: if LEH was so strong, why | didn't the Koreans invest? Why didn't BARC invest before BK? | The issue, again and again and as explained at massive length | in several books, they had very shaky funding, they had a lot | of stuff that no-one knew how to value, they insisted to | everyone that this stuff was very very valuable...it was not. | If the real estate was so valuable, why couldn't they sell it? | Every single person who I have ever met in the same position (I | have met many) is in denial...that is why they are in that | position. Fuld made numerous mistakes that can be summarised | as: he thought he had pocket aces, he had 72o. | | Asking Dick Fuld for opinions on Dick Fuld is not smart. | numair wrote: | I am not going to go too far into this but, I was in meetings | with Dick and senior executives from the other banks. The | "lol sorry bro" attitude wasn't just Dick's way of telling | the story. | hogFeast wrote: | ...I am not sure that I disputed that. What I said was: the | reason why LEH didn't get bailed out was because the stock | was worthless, and mgmt mismanaged that from day one (even | towards the end, LEH was trying to sell its real estate at | book...this isn't hard). And then Fuld went around telling | everyone he should have got bailed out (btw, if you went | into a meeting with other banks and started telling them | they should give you money for nothing...do you think that | wouuld have went down well?). | whimsicalism wrote: | > I met X who did Y terrible thing, he isn't actually a bad | guy, I am going to ignore all the public information about X | and prioritise my super special "insider" knowledge | | And it's such a trope. I swear, it feels like the quality of | discussion on HN has gotten measurably more low-brow in the | last few days. | dannyphantom wrote: | Thank you for your sentiment; I was unsure of the point | initially but you really drove home to the concept of retail | investors actualizing their significance in this new market. | | Of course, I'd like to both as you personally and additionally | air out a sentiment of the ease of access being delivered to | retail investors. What was once prohibitive has now been given | to the individual. Do you have any sentiments that you're | willing to share on that notion? | | As an additional thought; personally, I can't believe the | behavior of some of the brokers that have come to light | recently. RobinHood who, as they said in a tweet in 2016 "let | the people invest" and now, in 2021 we see how true they | maintain their values by restricting the very same people they | sought to empower by disallowing trading on their platform. It | is despicable. | hinkley wrote: | The problem with a conscience is that it gives you a tell, that | others without one can use against you when they're in need of | a scapegoat. | | As someone once told me when I lamented that I don't talk to a | certain person more often, they stopped me and pointed out that | the phone system works in both directions. There are two people | not talking to each other, not just me. | | Dick participated, he could have blown the whistle, and he | didn't, so he deserves a share of the guilt. He is not | innocent. But if you didn't _build_ the house of cards, then it | 's not _your_ fault, it 's the group's fault. If you colluded | to remove people who would have said something, then you get | more of a share of the blame. Anyone could have blown the | whistle, not just you. Even if it's obvious that you are the | most likely whistleblower, there could have been others. (And | if you _were_ the most obvious, you can 't anonymously tip | someone off because everyone will know it's you, so you're | doubly screwed.) | | One of the things slimeballs have intuited for millenia is that | if you really believe something crazy, nobody is going to pick | up that you're lying because you believe it. You've lied to | yourself, and then fastidiously avoided looking at the lie so | that you can maintain your innocence, and your profit stream. | You're guilty as sin, with extra sins piled on top. | dnautics wrote: | > The problem with a conscience is that it gives you a tell. | | We should encourage conscientious people to play more poker, | I guess. | archibaldJ wrote: | As a programmer and an aspiring amateur quant myself I always | ponder upon the possibilities of more people starting & managing | mini hedge funds (e.g. with a starting captial of 200~500k?) with | a mix of fundementals + algo-trading with multi-agent | simulations, game-theoretic modelling, etc. | | As more platforms like ploygon.io, alpaca.markets emerge as well | as more DeFi stuff gaining tractions, I really hope in the next | 10 years regulations, etc, in the financial space would leave | more rooms for smaller players to thrive. | ineedasername wrote: | _extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose | investors to rapid and severe losses and undermine market | confidence_ | | It's not the SEC's role to protect investors from risk or losses, | rapid or otherwise, and saying that the recent activity | "undermines confidence" is just another way of saying "increases | risk", which is not their job. They should ensure confidence by | guarding against fraud, but not to protect against losses by | institutions that never thought that activist investors would | work against their own interests. | | This isn't really manipulation that we're seeing: it's people | betting against the institutions that themselves bet against | companies combined with a fair bit of FOMO. | threedots wrote: | Protecting investors is literally the first part of the SEC's | three part purpose statement. | | The SEC came into existence because retail investors lost huge | amounts of money in the 20's in speculative bubbles. The same | thing is going to happen here so the SEC is literally doing | what it was set up to do. | RurouniK wrote: | Apparently when retail investors win it's "Manipulative trading | activity"... I'm so glad Bitcoin and DeFi was invented in my | lifetime and I can be protected by maths and computer science | instead of a three letter agency. | dialamac wrote: | Yeah that's nice, so at least you can be involved in something | where there is no doubt of large scale unfettered manipulation. | I guess that certainty is a plus for some. | RurouniK wrote: | Do you have any proof of that large scale unfettered | manipulation other than some random posts from salty boomers | like yourself? | jdefr89 wrote: | Yea, unfortunately they isn't really the case right now as cash | is still king and crypto is another gamble. Not to mention, who | do you think could buy better hardware? Us or them? | | There isn't really such thing as decentralized. Its just the | authority gets shifted around but the same issues can still | show up. | RurouniK wrote: | Crypto is a technology not a gamble. It attracts gamblers but | it's a technology and it's already 12 years old. I could say | that an open decentralized permissionless network that has | moved trillions of dollars for the last 12 years is resilient | enough for me. | Raidion wrote: | You could say the exact same thing about the US stock | market, except it's moved orders of magnitude more money. | | The risk may not be in the same spots as traditional | markets, but it's there. Return doesn't come without risk, | it comes because of the risk. | RurouniK wrote: | The US stock market is an institution run by suits not a | technology. I mean boomers like you might think that the | internet and usps are the same thing because they both | move messages around but they are not. | ycombigator wrote: | "the Commission will work to protect investors" | | Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha... | d33lio wrote: | I generally find protests trite and idiotic, however if Yellen | sides with hedge funds on this, and / or bails them out I'm going | to find the nearest "peaceful" protest in NYC and bring as many | people as I know. | nscalf wrote: | Protecting the individual investor usually looks like limiting | our ability to participate in the market. | peteyPete wrote: | Whatever pressure is needed to stop the masses from understanding | the power they have when working together. Although GameStop is | small fries in comparison to other larger stocks, if that many | people are willing to get together to vote with their dollars, | that should scare wallstreet. And sure, this is "organized" but | how is this any different than analysts with large audiences | making calls and directing a large number of investors in the | direction they want? Or hedge funds publishing their shorts and | masses reacting based on that, affecting the stock. The | hypocrisy. If they're going to regulate the people to this | extent, they better regulate and actually enforce the regulations | on wallstreet. Can't just protect one side. | 1024core wrote: | _to ensure that regulated entities uphold their obligations to | protect investors_ | | This is the "out" for RH. They'll claim (they already have) that | they were protecting their investors | dang wrote: | For pointers to other vertices of this story graph, see | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543. | | (Sorry for the annoying repetition:) Large threads are paginated. | To see all the comments, you'll need to click More at the bottom | of each page, or do this sort of thing: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25957748&p=2 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25957748&p=3 | sendtown_expwy wrote: | It seems like Robinhood, when it stopped trading on GME, decided | to literally transfer money from the WSB retail traders to the | funds who were short on the stock. But if Robinhood needed to | halt trading in order to just survive as a brokerage, (and could | demonstrate so), would that justify its behavior? Does anyone | know more about laws and regulations concerning brokerages here? | gruez wrote: | >It seems like Robinhood, when it stopped trading on GME, | decided to literally transfer money from the WSB retail traders | to the funds who were short on the stock. | | what? | joncrane wrote: | Preventing purchase orders would cause the stock price to go | down. | | The funds short the stock gain wealth from the stock price | declining. | | Holders of the stock lose wealth. Clients who want to buy | "lose" the opportunity to gain wealth. | | The suspension of the ability to buy into the hype absolutely | hurt the long folks (mostly retail WSB types) and helped the | short folks (the big hedge funds which are short GME). | JanSuly wrote: | Could someone please explain briefly, where the problem is if | someone small investers start investing in a trade? Yes, my | question sounds as if it was from someone who doesn't get the | whole story. | gdubs wrote: | A lot of cynical takes here, projecting the worst intentions of | the government. | | To me this seems: | | A) remarkably hands-off, patient. "The market seems to be | working." | | B) A reminder to newbies that there ARE laws, so don't be stupid | as your investing journey continues. | | C) If anyone should be on the edge of their seats it's regulated | entities who may have manipulated markets by putting their thumb | on the scales. | pgAdmin4 wrote: | I am naive here, can someone explain what is the economic utility | of a stock market ? | | For example, its easy to understand utility of food, cloths, car, | house, money. But I am not able to find a reason about stock | market existence for day-to-day trading, where secondary stocks | are traded daily after IPO. It seems none of the day-to-day | trading money/profit ever goes back to business to help them to | improve that business. | threedots wrote: | Secondary markets provide liquidity for primary investors which | makes making primary investments much more attractive. A stock | market is just a highly organized kind of secondary market. How | many VC investors there would be if they could never sell, or | if they could only sell at prices which were random? Without a | secondary market all investments would be permanent and that | would make investing much less attractive. | | Secondary markets also provide important capital allocation | benefits. They make it easier for good companies to raise | additional capital (e.g. via a rights issue) or buy other | businesses (using their shares). They also provide an important | benchmarking role allowing non-listed companies to price | transactions on the basis of listed company valuations. | AcerbicZero wrote: | The map isn't supposed to be the terrain; Generating wealth isn't | the same as generating money, and the stock market seems to exist | almost entirely for the latter, at the cost of the former. | | We're in a situation where playing in the market is a better | strategy than using the market for its legacy purposes (you know, | buying partial ownership in companies) and the number of | financial tools created specifically to exploit the ability of | wealth to generate additional wealth vastly out match everything | else. | | Anyway I've got paperhands and bailed on my positions days ago by | following some old WSB advice that's actually worth while - "take | your profits when you want to" | aritmo wrote: | The response is pretty weak. The system was gamed for so long and | small companies were driven out of existence. They are pretty | saying, let's see how this plays out and we figure out after the | fact what to do. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | > The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated | entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly | inhibit their ability to trade certain securities. In addition, | we will act to protect retail investors when the facts | demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is | prohibited by the federal securities laws. | | Hopeful sentences for the ones who long GME. How often does the | initial statement SEC makes actually matter? | pferde wrote: | In summary, just a vague "we are watching" statement. | TeMPOraL wrote: | My attention was caught by this paragraph: | | > _In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when | the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity | that is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market | participants should be careful to avoid such activity. | Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal | securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their | own securities._ | | I'm no stock player, so I may not be reading the implied | meaning correctly. But on the face of it, it seems at least as | recognizing WSB-driven buyers as valid players in this match. | | (However, it's an open question whether they consider WSB's | attempt at short squeeze as an organic thing, or a coordinated | stock manipulation. The latter, as I understand it, is strictly | illegal.) | bo1024 wrote: | I can read it the opposite way. "We will stop retail from | trading for their own good because we think they are being | manipulated." | pferde wrote: | Good point, I missed the explicit reference to "retail | investors". That makes the statement somewhat interesting. | pmx wrote: | I think this part is pretty clear: | | "In addition, we will act to protect retail investors when the | facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that | is prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market | participants should be careful to avoid such activity." | dubcanada wrote: | What did you expect them to do? Go around arresting people? | Stop trading on every market? Say that Robinhood is no longer | allowed to trade? | | It's a giant government body that overseas a very large tender | market of money, they can't just make rash decisions. They need | to review, see how it plays out in the longer term, and see how | the government is going to want to adjust. | | I don't think technically anything (minus the robinhood/other | people restricting buying, and even that who knows) that's | going on is really "wrong-doing" on the surface. Everything | seems to be by the book. | | So they'll need to dig deep into the stock and find evidence | and provide that evidence to the body that reviews stuff. | | You probably won't hear of any changes for months if not years | if at all. | LittlePeter wrote: | It's something at least. You have to give SEC some time to | investigate. | cush wrote: | What an absolutely nothing and unspecific statement. It could be | the description on Wikipedia explaining the responsibility of the | SEC. | jancsika wrote: | A Moment in the Life of an HN Genius: | | 1. Reads a technical document outside their domain. | | 2. Feels dumb because they don't have a grasp on any of the | concepts. | | 3. Too busy to use the very internet _which some of them probably | helped build_ to magically render learning materials to the | screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. | | 4. Sees the word "manipulation" | | 5. Substitutes the laymen's definition of "manipulation" | | 6. Builds a fantasy World of Wall Street from first principles | around that definition | | 7. Argues their fantasy first-principles Wall Street against | other participants' fantasy first-principles Wall Street | | 8. Everyone leaves sync'd on the fantasy of feeling smarter than | when they arrived. | twblalock wrote: | The flood of articles about this topic hitting the front page, | and the flood of comments on those articles full of | conspiratorial thinking, have been surprising. | | Even during the election, the controversy following the | election, and the Capitol riot, the front page didn't get taken | over by a flood of articles. Something is different this time. | It was not good. I hope it won't happen again. | | The moderators on this site do great work, and I'm sure this | caught them by surprise and they did their best. I hope a | controversy like the one that happened with WSB and Robin Hood | in the past few days will not be able to take over this site to | such an extent again. | mancerayder wrote: | Your criteria for moderating/censorship is that the post | suggests a conspiracy? Are you not worried the scope might be | wider than intended and the net cast snag ideas tagged as | conspiracies that aren't or are later discovered to not be? | | Or is the criteria that it's a negative and implicates | mainstream institutions? | | I'm asking an honest question in good faith because I'm | nervous at people conflating fringe ideas and extremist | ideology with merely non mainstream ideas or suggestions. | twblalock wrote: | There were quite a few stories about this on the front page | (many of which were duplicates), and a frenzy of posters | positing conspiracy theories in the comments to those posts | -- stuff like accusing Robin Hood of being paid off by | hedge funds, general conspiracies about market manipulation | and rigging, and trolls posting WSB-style content. | | If I want to see a flood of fake news and conspiracy | theories there are plenty of other places to go. HN is not | supposed to be the kind of site where that happens. Somehow | the norms that prevented that from happening before on this | site, even during times of extreme political controversy, | have been broken. | temp8964 wrote: | Yeah. Common sense no longer makes sense. Let me write a | technical document stating how killing half of population is | justified, but it is not for laymen to understand. | vntok wrote: | Depends on whether your document's field is microbiology and | "population" commonly refers to lethal viruses that we want | eradicated, or it is sociology and population specifically | refers to humans. | | Which is exactly the parent's point. Don't assume words mean | the exact same thing from one field to another. | germinalphrase wrote: | Natural human behavior that smart people fall into just as | easily as anyone else. Go read any HN thread on airplanes, | education, or war... | bcrosby95 wrote: | So, the HN "Genius" is just like most other people on the | internet? I think the problem isn't with the HN "Genius", it's | you expecting people on HN to not behave like people. | | Stop putting STEM workers on a pedestal. We're still just | people. Like everyone else. | leothecool wrote: | Do you have any metrics to back this up? | | Or is this your own fantasy you've built up... | stjohnswarts wrote: | "let's not discuss anything because we aren't experts or even | amateurs in _____________. HN discussion is therefore useless | and I declare the site be taken down immediately, post haste" | Flott wrote: | I get the point. They way it's delivered is just so passive | agressive. | SirSavary wrote: | Seems like you struck a nerve. I'm impressed by how many people | are replying to this, quoting your points, and then talking | about those points as if they were addressed directly at them. | | When did HN become overrun by narcissists? | notapenny wrote: | Just because people are replying to your take, doesn't mean | they are narcissists. Its possible to look at an argument and | engage it without being triggered. People that disagree with | you are not automatically x-ists. Though it sure is easier to | believe they are, since that way you don't need to consider | the alternative. | e_tm_ wrote: | day 1 | TeMPOraL wrote: | You say "narcissists", I say I'm tired of seeing people | shutting down anyone who uses their brain to try and | comprehend the facts - and god forbid they know some math and | are capable of formal reasoning. | | This approach is just teaching people to repeat memes after | pundits and not use their brain - instead of teaching them to | work on better reasoning skills, and applying these skills to | the problems they face, while accounting for their lack of | expertise. | | Discussions should be about arguments, not people's | authority. If you see someone being wrong and you know better | because you've studied the field for longer, point out the | flaws in their arguments, offer corrections, but embrace that | they're at least trying for understanding, instead of | condemning them. | beaconstudios wrote: | I totally agree that merit of arguments should be earned by | the argument, but on HN there's an awful lot of bad | arguments posited in terms of "I think it probably works | THIS way based on how I imagined up the entire industry in | my head" that then go on to try to make a "hoho those | stupid industry insiders, they didn't see solution X" point | on said completely imaginary model. IE, not very rigorous | models being used overconfidently. | | Closely related XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1831/ | bart_spoon wrote: | > "I think it probably works THIS way based on how I | imagined up the entire industry in my head" | | That's how every opinion anyone's ever had works. | Everyone has a mental model, which they use to understand | the world. If you have a problem with the specifics, | address them. Otherwise, you are simply appealing to | authority. | beaconstudios wrote: | Of course. But there's a difference between studying or | being involved in an industry to formulate your model and | being confident in that, and being confident in pure | conjecture. Mental models are great and they're really | all we have to understand the world, but they should be | based in some kind of observation. | TeMPOraL wrote: | The arguments posited in terms of " _I think_ it | _probably_ works THIS way ... " are arguably the best | ones - they qualify someone's lack of expertise and save | the reader from assigning undue confidence to claims :). | | That said, Internet discussions are run on Cunningham's | Law - you say what you think you know, and others will | call your errors out, or challenge your assumptions. As | long as people don't read any single comment as gospel, | but consider the whole discussion in context of their own | knowledge, applying basic critical thinking, everyone | gets to train their reasoning skills and learn something. | I'd expect this to be a baseline on HN. | | I'm confident being the protagonist of that XKCD is a | rite of passage in this industry :). | egwor wrote: | I think that there's a real problem with people using | 'Cunningham's Law' as a way to learn. It might be fine | for that person (because they know their limits), but | then anyone reading it could incorrectly quote that | person as being right (because it wasn't corrected). | These ideas are then duplicated and we get into a real | mess where we can't differentiate widely held views vs | the experts/most agreed upon view by experts. | | In general, this can't be a way to move forward as a | society if people just make stuff up. | snowwrestler wrote: | How dare you call me, specifically, a narcissist with this | comment! | | (But to be serious, I think it's easy to accidentally take | forum comments personally because the physical act of reading | HN comments, social media DMs, and text messages are all | basically the same. So maybe it's easy for our emotions to | get mixed up.) | SilasX wrote: | I don't think it's narcissism, I think it's the dynamic | described in the SSC post, Weak Men Are Superweapons: | | >>Alice said something along the lines of "I hate people who | frivolously diagnose themselves with autism without knowing | anything about the disorder. They should stop thinking | they're 'so speshul' and go see a competent doctor." | | >>Beth answered something along the lines of "I diagnosed | myself with autism, but only after a lot of careful research. | I don't have the opportunity to go see a doctor. I think what | you're saying is overly strict and hurtful to many people | with autism." | | >>Alice then proceeded to tell Beth she disagreed, in that | special way only Tumblr users can. I believe the word "cunt" | was used. | | Alexander explains what's going on as: | | >>Beth chose to stand up for the people who self- diagnosed | autism without careful research. This wasn't because she | considered herself a member of that category. It was because | she decided that self- diagnosed autistics were going to | stand or fall as a group, and if Alice succeeded in pushing | her "We should dislike careless self- diagnosees" angle, then | the fact that she wasn't careless wouldn't save her. | | >>Alice, for her part, didn't bother bringing up that she | never accused Beth of being careless, or that Beth had no | stake in the matter. She saw no point in pretending that | boxing in Beth and the other careful self- diagnosers in with | the careless ones wasn't her strategy all along. | | https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Weak-Men-Are- | Superwea... | dang wrote: | Please don't do psychological mass-diagnosis of large | internet communities, including HN, in HN comments. Those are | always an invention because there isn't nearly enough data to | assess anything like that. | | Meanwhile, when you do this (I don't mean you personally), | it's always to bash the other side of some $issue, which is | just the sort of flamebait and provocation we're asking | people to avoid here--regardless of how wrong other people | are or you feel they are. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | f430 wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25954606 | | One really good example in that link is a user trying to | claim that race & iq is the determining factor in economic | outcome while dropping racial slurs as examples to justify | racism against Asians and other groups that he thinks are ALL | "wealthy" and "smart". | | It's a great illustration of parent's comment. Taking an | outdated model and then using it to justify his/her own | skewed views. Sort of like how we use colour labels created | by a Swedish pseudoscientist to reduce ethnicities to is | being heralded as a great achievement. | Chris2048 wrote: | > Builds a fantasy World of Wall Street from first principles | | or what experts call "a model" | titzer wrote: | Congrats, you hit the Smarty's Catch 22--thinking you found the | error in the smart people's oversimplified reasoning with | oversimplified reasoning and then throwing stones. | | /ducks | dang wrote: | Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site | guidelines yourself. That just makes this place even worse. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tompccs wrote: | I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. Time and | time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions | which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your | watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from | first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially | in the stock market. | | You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority is | seriously wearing thin. Pretty much the only field which hasn't | been embarrassed by an outsider of late is physics, and even | that might not last forever (I remember the smugness with which | Stephen Wolfram is routinely dismissed from having non- | consensus views of physics). | | Progress almost always comes from non-consensus outsiders. This | whole website is supposed to be a testament to that! | jancsika wrote: | > I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. | | To my mind, I'm doing the equivalent of chiding front-end | beginners for not spending a few minutes reading the part of | the ecmascript spec that describes the language's primitive | values. (Or at least a primer that covers the names of those | types.) That spec is free, and I can probably find the | relevant section faster than I can type this sentence. | | Actually, it took me a minute and a half-- it's in section | 6.1.6: "ECMAScript Language Types" of the ECMAScript 2020 | spec. | | It doesn't take much longer to skim that section and start a | mental model with at least the name for each primitive type. | | Armed even with that superficial knowledge, a beginner is | less likely to make mistakes in communication with others. | E.g., they are less likely to read a tutorial on symbols, | confuse it with a tutorial on strings, and/or waste the | author's time asking a question about strings. | | Someone who hasn't read the spec (or at least a primer) might | assume that those words are synonyms, or perhaps that | "symbol" refers to the content, or has something to do with | unicode code points, or has the same relationship and single | and double quotes in ecmascript. | | I have no doubt such a beginner can concoct all kinds of | interesting definitions for "symbol" from first principles. | Perhaps in some cases their own idiosyncratic | misunderstanding describes some "alternate ecmascript" | language that has superior features to the real ecmascript. | That we can so easily construct these alternate realities is | cool in and of itself and is an obvious part of the learning | process. | | What _isn 't_ cool is when a critical mass of commenters who | don't know and won't learn the basic terminology pretend to | have a discussion about a topic which in reality each comment | is in it's on parallel universe of idiosyncratic terminology. | Especially on this topic, it's extremely likely that one's | idiosyncratic, uneducated take is going to be immensely more | boring and fruitless when compared to accurate and well- | informed takes on what played out in the stock market over | the past week. | | I look forward to posting something like this the next time | the topics of macroeconomics or unions come up. | JamesBarney wrote: | The non experts who do this are almost always people who have | spent significant amounts of time familiarizing themselves | with the literature. | | It is fairly obvious that this is not the case for most | people in threads about GME. | [deleted] | a-dub wrote: | i think overall people are feeling a little burned by trump's | anti-filter and rampant conspiracy theories that have taken | hold recently and as such are retreating to respect for | status and authority. | | there is some good to come of it, but i do wonder if the baby | is being thrown out with the bathwater. true experts can | handily defeat nonsensical arguments in their fields and | unusual viewpoints can enrich their thinking. | nabla9 wrote: | This is not outsider vs. establishment expert. | | This is effort to learn vs. making hasty judgements issue. | | I have studied several subjects over 100 - 1000 hours as an | outsider, but that does not mean that I can criticize | experts. I can ask pointed questions maybe. Being | intellectually humble is good. | | In this issue outsiders should at least read everything Matt | Levine writes on the subject as a starting point. | colechristensen wrote: | It's not about staying in your lane, it's about being more | aware of your ignorance. What you notice, over and over, is | the people talking the loudest about most things have very | little real idea about whatever they're talking about. The | truth is almost always more boring than the most attention- | grabbing theory, this bias found all over for the non-expert | with the big opinion needs to stop. | | People with the stock industry conspiracy theories are doing | the _exact same_ thing as voter fraud people. That is, people | with almost no information are forming theories about a | secret cabal of the powerful keeping them down. | | The reality which is becoming obvious is that trades were at | several brokerages were halted because of capital | requirements for brokerage firms. The capital requirements | for some of these meme stocks changed, the stocks were very | broadly held at these brokerages, and they simply didn't have | the capital on hand where it needed to be to cover the | requirements. That's (1) a lot more boring, and (2) a lot | more complicated than a conspiracy about market fixing, so it | doesn't get attention outside of people who actually know. | elefanten wrote: | That's not at all the attitude I read in gp. | | Being cognizant of our (humans') fantastic, ego-bolstering | tendencies is a good thing. | xapata wrote: | I think bullets 3 and 5 were the main point of that comment. | It wasn't well-said, but it is in fact valuable to spend a | moment to get familiar with the jargon a person is using, | even if that jargon happens to have homonyms with a different | field's jargon. That effort is what allows us to "swim out of | our lanes" as you might say. | tompccs wrote: | Fair enough, it's more the condescending attitude that rubs | me up the wrong way. And if the words regulators use mean | to them different things than they mean to everyone else | (the people whom the regulations are ostensibly supposed to | protect), that's probably interesting in itself! If you are | charged with 'theft' under a law that defines 'theft' in a | very different way to how you or your peers would define | it, that's probably going to be a problem. So I'm all for a | discussion on what the jargon actually means, if anyone has | any insights beyond making general snipes at the HN | community. | oasisbob wrote: | Theft is a pretty good example, actually. | | In many US states, the legal definition of "assault" is | much different than the battery most people picture. | | Robbery is not larceny. | | Burglary is not larceny. | | Your peers probably don't know what robbery actually is. | aaroninsf wrote: | This is spot on accurate, | | Yet my next thought was in the "forest vs trees" | direction which as far as I can tell as someone with | homemade popcorn watching both this thread, and the "meme | stock" story (saw that phrase last night), | | I will suggest that as in the case of the peers' | ignorance of specific legal definitions, | | it's the thought or thrust that is usually being grappled | with, and the dimension of argument is usually not e.g. | about the _specific_ crimes some person might be guilty | of or not, but rather the fact of their wrongdoing. Where | "wrong" is not a legal concept full stop. | | So too in the case of the GME thing, if not this thread; | I suspect that there is a lot of implicit meta- | argumentation going on, | | and that some of what I see in this thread appears to be | missing (or more likely, dis-missing) that, to engage in | "tree" level quibbling. | | (All said, I do agree words and their meaning matter; and | that when we want to use them informally, because | specificity in some domain is not germane to our | argument, we would do well to be explicit about that...) | esoterica wrote: | Haha, of course you're The Type of Guy who worships Wolfram. | | You know he's a total crank right. | dang wrote: | Personal attacks are not cool here regardless of how wrong | another comment is or how much you disagree with someone. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | uh_uh wrote: | One could argue that the whole situation came about because | outsiders (Reddit users) caught the "experts" (hedge funds) | with their pants down. | mobjack wrote: | Market experts have been caught with their pants down many | times before because of the actions of uninformed | investors. | | In 1999, the rational move would be to short tech stocks as | they were over valued, but those who tried it lost lots of | money because they didn't factor in how crazy investors | were at driving up the price. | | You can technically be right but still end up losing | everything. | VectorLock wrote: | This harkens back to the extremely worn threadbare quote | "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay | solvent." | Aunche wrote: | Redditors made millions of dollars. A couple hedge funds | lost billions. Where did the rest of the money go to? Other | institutional investors. Nearly 10% of Gamestop is held by | a mutual fund where experts try to pick undervalued stocks. | | https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html? | s... | Voloskaya wrote: | > Time and time again, experts have been shown to have | consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality | | No, it's just that it's not interesting when an expert is | right about their domain expertise so we don't talk about it. | | The issue is people getting skewed by this and then inferring | that it must mean, on average, that their outsider opinion is | as valid as experts, but really, it's not. | ditonal wrote: | If a physicists tells me something about how the solar | system works, they don't have much reason to lie to me. | | If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they have a | huge reason to lie to me. | | Given what we say in cases like Enron, Bear Stearns, I am | shocked and dismayed at the eagerness of Hacker News | contributors to so readily accept whatever Robinhood tells | them as 100% gospel. | | Where were all these experts on clearing houses a week ago, | warning of this exact risk? Because plenty of people had | opinions on Gamestop, that maybe the SEC would halt trading | altogether etc, but not a single person mentioned this | clearing house liquidity issues until it happened. And I | still really can't get a good explanation for why if I had | 10k in my non-margin account that cleared over a year ago I | can't use that to buy a stock(or withdraw for that matter, | though hopefully that's temporary). OR, if people were | allowed to sell stock, who were they selling to?? Clearly | SOMEONE was allowed to buy! A lot of misdirection around | things like margin accounts. | | Robinhood didn't give any real explanation until many hours | later. But they're apparently just "poor communicators." | Amazing how a billion dollar company filled with conflicts | of interest making a totally unprecedented restriction that | actively helps their hedge fund investor simply can't | possibly be committing any sort of fraud. | | Because nobody's ever committed fraud before, a Robinhood | press release must be treated as the "facts". This is | insanity . Robinhood are not the "experts" in this case, | their version of truth is probably the least reliable of | all parties. | stcredzero wrote: | _If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they | have a huge reason to lie to me._ | | If there are enough mechanisms of "Crony Capitalism" at | play, to cause most of the trading apps in existence to | halt trading, this is definitely something that needs to | be investigated. | | Likewise, if there are enough of these crony mechanisms | involving collusion between Facebook, Twitter, Square, | Stripe, and Visa targeting people, this also warrants | investigation. It seems to be part and parcel the same | sort of thing. | | People have been calling stuff like this out since the | 80's! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent | CabSauce wrote: | I don't think anyone is saying "we don't need to | investigate". They're saying "let's find evidence before | we assume malintent". | koheripbal wrote: | The internet mob does not wait for pesky delays of | "evidence"! | dudeinjapan wrote: | Maybe not apples-to-apples, but... I worked on Lehman's | Tokyo electronic trading desk in 2008. When we went | bankrupt, it wasn't our clients, or even the exchanges | which stopped our trading. It was our clearing banks. | | Interestingly, we weren't cutoff uniformly in all | markets. NY desk was trading about 75% of regular volume | for 4 days into the bankruptcy before someone (SEC?) told | them to knock it off. | | There's a lot going on in Robinhood's back office and | legal teams of which we are not aware. While I'm as | pissed as anyone that they shutoff trading, I'm open to | the idea that the shutoff was for far more mundane | reasons than collusion with Citadel and Point 72. | [deleted] | mgleason_3 wrote: | "I'm as pissed as anyone that they shut off trading," | | Robinhood did not halt trading or shut off trading. | | Robinhood prevented _buying_ Gamestop and only allowed | selling. | | That's entirely different. It can only do one thing - | drive the price down which is market manipulation. It's | supposed to be illegal. | mlthoughts2018 wrote: | They did halt both buying and selling of _net new | positions._ They did not halt adjustments of _existing | positions_ (calls & shorts). | | This was actually a very fair, by-the-books standard | trading halt. It just happened to benefit the short | sellers who had been squeezed because they could easily | find people willing to sell. | | You definitely could still buy GME if you found some | extremely random call option holder who needed to _sell_ | to cover their position. This would not be changing a net | new position, just like selling to someone looking to | cover a previous short, and this was never blocked - it's | just there was no volume for this, nobody owned calls and | needed to sell. | vkou wrote: | Robinhood's collateral requirements increase when their | users buy stock, and decrease when their users sell | stock. | | If they hit their collateral limits, they have two | options. | | 1. Stop all trading for a few days, as the trades settle, | the funds clear, and the collateral requirements drop. | Cue millions of pissed users who want to close their | positions, but can't. | | 2. Only stop trades that increase their collateral | requirements - buys. | | There's also option 3 which is 'immediately get kicked | off the settlement networks and go into bankruptcy, | because they are trading past their collateral | requirements.' | | Which of these three options would manipulate the stock | price less, and screw over fewer people, in your | estimate? | dudeinjapan wrote: | Playing devil's advocate, it's possible that the | lawyer/clearing bank/regulator gave the instruction to | cutoff all trading in the name, and cutting off only buys | was the lesser of bad options. (Had they also cutoff | selling, it would have been even worse!) | | Reading the SEC's letter (in the OP), you can clearly see | the SEC wants everyone to sell out of their position and | make this whole thing go away. RH no doubt has an army of | lawyers and compliance people whose entire jobs/careers | is to predict what the regulator wants and proactively be | their lapdog. (The regulators meanwhile are completely | free to be Monday-morning quarterbacks and retroactively | assess fines to anyone, despite providing no concrete | guidance of what to do in an unprecedented situation like | this one.) | Aunche wrote: | I don't take what Robinhood says at face-value because | they have proven to be a sketchy-ass brokerage. That | said, I still find their statements infinitely more | valuable than baseless conspiracy theories floating | around. Why would Citadel risk jeopardizing their | lucrative relationship with Robinhood just so they | _might_ be able to successfully manipulate the market? | [deleted] | tompccs wrote: | Of course, an outsider can't simply declare something to be | true by dint of being an outsider. You need to reason it. | Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. | But experts should be held to the same standard. | kd0amg wrote: | > Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins | out. | | This is a fine way to settle debates about the | health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it | doesn't help much when the point of contention is a | question of law. | [deleted] | AnthonyMouse wrote: | The other issue is that it tends to be underspecified | whether a discussion is about law or policy. | | Someone comes in and describes from first principles what | a reasonable system would look like, and then someone | else haughtily chastises them because that isn't how the | existing system works. But if you read it as they | intended it, i.e. as a policy proposal rather than a | legal opinion, then the fact that it isn't the existing | system is the point. The intention is to change the | system to make it that way and the desired response is | either support or a criticism of the mechanics of the | proposal rather than its basis in existing law. | mcguire wrote: | On the other hand, many people who reason from first | principles fall into two fallacies: | | First, they believe that their system is how the world | should work, and therefore how it would work if only | someone, somewhere, weren't interfering. The result is | conspiracy theories. | | Second, they have not fully thought out the consequences, | or don't care about them, and dismiss the historical | consequences of similar systems in the past. Reasoning | with people who ignore evidence in favor of their | theorizing is difficult. | andrewprock wrote: | I can only applaud this succinct diagnosis of the | difficulty in dealing with online debate. | pas wrote: | Offline debates tend to be even worse. You usually don't | have time to read it at your pace, whoever talks to you | will keep making sounds, etc. | avs733 wrote: | > an outsider can't simply declare something to be true | by dint of being an outsider. | | you must be new to the internet. | pas wrote: | So ... an outsider who just declared something as true. | It's tautologies all the way down! :) | avs733 wrote: | a tautologie is a form of turtle, I don't understand why | the herpetologists haven't read my medium to understand | that. | wolf550e wrote: | The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the | reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the | concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something. | Your post can be interpreted to mean "my ignorance is just as | good as your knowledge". That's anti-vax thinking and | argument. That is not a way to make progress. | maedla wrote: | Yep exactly. For every one outsider that gets it right, how | many are wrong? I'd wager, quite a bit | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | Expertise is not a Boolean. I'd trust a qualified | physicist to make useful predictions about quantum | devices, an EE to model an analog circuit, and a | structural engineer to design a bridge that doesn't fall | down. | | But financiers, bankers, and economists have a much less | convincing record - and that's after you filter out the | ones who have been caught breaking the law. | 7d6dyeyee wrote: | I always hear these sorts of criticisms of economists and | financiers but I just don't think they hold water | overall. Usually when I hear econ get flak the | conversation rapidly devolves into criticisns of the | abstract fairness of a solution rather then its | priorities and effectiveness within the context. You see | this constantly in the US when politicians from either | side talk about the bank bailouts, the national debt, | minimum wage, immigration, etc. Suddenly, rather than | having anything resembling a sober and informed | discussion about the topic and the current expert | consensus, everyone just starts soapboxing about fatcats | and entitlement while larping as intellectuals as they | promote fringe 'theories' that happened to coincide with | their political objectives. Meanwhile the actual | economists and their suggestions get either drowned out | or misrepresented. | stcredzero wrote: | _The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done | the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all | the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about | something._ | | http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html | cogman10 wrote: | Pretty well captured by that old comedy sketch "The expert" | [1] | | I dare say that most people here on HN have been hit by | upper management telling them to do something stupid or | impossible. I'd even wager that most have had them get | defensive when you try to explain why doing X isn't a good | idea. | | That's effectively what I see when someone criticizes | "experts" broadly and generally. I've long accepted that | there are many individuals that know a lot more about | subjects I know little about. While I have a pretty good | read on things related to computers, I'm more than willing | to admit that I'm not an expert in science, medicine, | climatology. | | So who should I trust? Should I trust the youtuber that's | "Found" the secret that the "so called experts" are trying | to hide from the public? Or should I look to the actual | experts actually working in the field and take their word | for it? Or do I take the harder route and try and build | understanding on the subject on my own? | | I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding | in general. However, what I've found is that by and large | the experts actually know what they are talking about. You | should generally trust them. The place where I've found a | LOT of misinformation is the "skeptics" that hurl doubt | without evidence while denigrating "experts". That is the | place where I've found outright lies. | | Evidence of such BS artists include Flat earthers, Anti- | vaxxers, and climate change deniers. Those are all flat out | wrong positions. There's mountains of evidence and experts | against each of those positions and mostly lies or | misrepresentation in favor. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg | mcguire wrote: | If an old, grey haired scientist tells you something is | possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something | is impossible, he's probably wrong.[1] But if a hundred | scientists tell you something, they might be wrong but | it's still the way you want to put your money. | | [1] As the saying goes. | cvwright wrote: | > [1] As the saying goes. | | It's from Arthur C. Clarke. | | https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a- | distinguished... | jodrellblank wrote: | The Expert sketch is all dramatic and frustrating, I | rather like the Mitchell and Webb spoon design sketch for | a quieter view of the problems of designing and | communicating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9nhExp5KI | | (y'know, if you're faced with something which seems | obvious, and the expert is struggling, why? And should | you simply trust them and give up? Why is the extra | "explanation" just the same thing repeated again and | again? How difficult it is to say "I still don't | understand" after several of these explanations. And then | at the end it's less clear whether the request is | reasonable, if you use spoons as a proxy for other | things). | stcredzero wrote: | _I certainly have tried to expand my personal | understanding in general. However, what I 've found is | that by and large the experts actually know what they are | talking about._ | | Right. It's the expert's blind spots that contain the | best nuggets of value. | dudeinjapan wrote: | Experts are almost always right, assuming their | assumptions are infallible. The skeptic's criticism is | often not directed at the expert's conclusions but their | axioms. | | Red lines with green ink --> use a thermochromic ink, | change the temperature. | | 7 lines all perpendicular to each other --> sure, in 7+ | dimensions. | | Solve the climate crisis --> geo-engineering. | Paddywack wrote: | I would frame this on two axis: 1) outsider vs | establishment 2) expert vs layperson | | My opinion (see below for how I have defined these) | | Outsider expert > establishment expert for public ally | challenging and overturning norms | | Any expert > layperson on the basic facts (ignoring | statistical aberrations, of course) | | "Outsider" being unconstrained by norms, not afraid to be | cast out of a long established peer group | | "Expert" has deep grasp of contemporary facts, second and | third order consequences, puts in controls to remove | cognitive biases, deep curiosity and healthy scepticism. | | "Layperson" being someone who is probably intelligent, but | grasps quickly onto unfamiliar concepts and data and makes | heuristic calls based on limited data. | edmundsauto wrote: | So Michael Mauboussin is kinda of my obsession in this | area. Basically, if it's a field with a lot of luck | involved in outcomes, don't trust the experts (finance | and economics). If it's heavily skill based (chess), | trust the experts. | Paddywack wrote: | Note the Dunning Kruger effect too! | adkadskhj wrote: | Very well said, thank you. That was my objection, too. | Outsider is a meaningful distinction in that they're still | a domain expert _(or something)_ , just not inline with the | standard. | | What the OP comment was citing wasn't that. Rather, it was | people like me - reading that document, not knowing the | terms but assembling some form of self reinforced | "knowledge". | | There's a difference between very well informed outsiders | which rival experts and random people. Thinking I know more | about vaccines and the dangers than researchers, doctors, | etc is moronic. I have no foundation to be making that | decision, and beyond the obvious "free will" arguments, i | shouldn't. | Chris2048 wrote: | > I remember the smugness with which Stephen Wolfram is | routinely dismissed from having non-consensus views of | physics | | The guy is disliked for taking too much credit for things, | not for "having non-consensus views" - which is sort of the | opposite problem. | btilly wrote: | He is disliked for different things by different people. | | See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists- | critic... for scientists dismissing his theories of | physics. | Chris2048 wrote: | Maybe, but I was talking about ppl on HN | btilly wrote: | People on HN are merely a (rather biased) sample of | people in the world. Just as people in general can | dislike him for different reasons, people on HN do as | well. | | I respect him for his work in programming. I dislike him | for assuming that success makes him correct in whatever | theories he comes up with in physics. Particularly when | he has failed to produce any testable predictions. | metalliqaz wrote: | > Time and time again, experts have been shown to have | consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can | almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a | situation from first principles and make money off the | 'experts', especially in the stock market. | | When? Who? Are you talking about, say, Dr. Burry and the | mortgage bubble? Because he was definitely an 'expert' | already. | slumdev wrote: | Dr. Burry was trained as a medical doctor and started | investing on the side. | | Definitely not one of the anointed "experts" who followed | the too-common family connections, Ivy League, and | i-banking VP path. | MattGaiser wrote: | His undergrad degree was in economics from UCLA. He never | practiced medicine and started his own hedge fund soon | after medical school. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry | MattGaiser wrote: | Non-consensus outsiders who later succeed are usually still | experts in the field, not people who are completely unaware | that parts of a field exist or people who joined up in the | past few hours. | skeeter2020 wrote: | >> Progress almost always comes from non-consensus outsiders. | | Don't confuse cause and effect. This doesn't mean all anti- | consensus ideas are genius and progress. Most are still just | junk. See the "all big thinks initially looked like toys" | meme for another example. | spamizbad wrote: | OP isn't asking us to defer to experts - he's arguing there | are laypersons not doing enough research before forming an | entire theory of how an industry works. | rodgerd wrote: | > I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. | | Is that you, Michael Gove. | | > You're welcome to your opinion but this appeal to authority | is seriously wearing thin. | | It _is_ you, Michael Gove. | | > Progress almost always comes from non-consensus outsiders. | | Certainly the spread of COVID19 in the UK and US is evidence | that _something_ can spread with the encouragement of "non- | consensus outsiders". | dang wrote: | Please do not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless | of how wrong a comment is or you feel it is. We're trying | for something different here. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | throwaway0a5e wrote: | There's an important difference between "stay in your lane" | and "keep your mouth shut until you know what you're talking | about". | tux1968 wrote: | Sometimes opening your mouth and saying the wrong thing is | the quickest way to improve your understanding. Starting | with an incorrect premise and then talking/arguing things | out until your understanding comes more in line with | reality is a pretty healthy tact. Essentially Agile | development, just applied more broadly. | xster wrote: | This seems like a strawman. The OP isn't arguing against | outsider/non-expert discussion. He's just satirizing HN's | specific tendencies to spin off of a headline/article first | glance into a let-me-teach-you-something fan fiction vs fan | fiction argument. | JKCalhoun wrote: | A agree that is what OP is doing. Disagree that we can | dismiss all HN comments unless they are experts in said | field. | [deleted] | throwawaylolx wrote: | > The OP isn't arguing against outsider/non-expert | discussion. | | Yeah, he's just strawmanning and shaming a hypothetical | group for the applauses of a circlejerk. | dang wrote: | Please don't respond to bad comments by making the thread | even worse. That's taking this place in exactly the wrong | direction. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | fatsdomino001 wrote: | That's a tendency for all headlines/articles, not just | those on HN | ramraj07 wrote: | Oh boy let's not get started on physicists this week! | iso1631 wrote: | From what I can tell almost no professional investers beat | the market, almost nobody wins the lottery. Why should I | listen to lottery players or professional wall street gamers? | watwut wrote: | Because while what you wrote is true, it is not really | relevant to how Wall Street earns money. They are not | earning money from beating the market. | iamacyborg wrote: | The warnings on UK spread betting companies are amusing. | | The broker I used to work at has a big disclaimer on all | their marketing stating that 77.9% of retail clients lose | money when trading with them. | | Doesn't stop people signing up thinking they can beat the | market... | koheripbal wrote: | Almost no doctors beat terminal cancer. Im going to try | this crystal healing method... | duckfang wrote: | I'll take it you've never gotten a bad diagnosis from a | doctor. Those too are disastrous, gets put in your | medical record, and local doctors will agree for the sole | sake of not refuting another local doctor. | | But jumping to crystals? Seriously? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Which, if accompanied by an empathic and engaged healer | who manages to fully invoke the power of whatever is that | drives the placebo effect, just might stand a chance of | being more effective (in certain cases). | A12-B wrote: | Reddit stock traders, some of whom are professional, have | consistently beaten the market by using collective action. | valuearb wrote: | Nope. | kortilla wrote: | The comment above you is lamenting not even looking up what | the stuff means before commenting. That has nothing to do | with insider vs outsider. | thesteamboat wrote: | > Time and time again, experts have been shown to have | consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can | almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a | situation from first principles and make money off the | 'experts', especially in the stock market. | | > Progress almost always comes from non-consensus outsiders. | This whole website is supposed to be a testament to that! | | Even granting that these statements are accurate (which | plenty of sibling comments are willing to dispute) I don't | think these statements suggest that "Stay in your lane" is | bad advice. | | Why? It's a question of distributions. For any given | task/field there are a lot more laypeople than experts. | Consider the following simple model where we quantify some | arbitrary ability score. If lay people's scores are normally | distributed with a low mean and expert's scores are normally | distributed with a high mean we can still see the best lay | person beating all the experts simply because there are so | many more of them. | | "You don't know more than the 'experts'" is good advice for | almost everyone even if there are counterexamples. | | There's a separate problem I think you're trying to point at | where in some fields credentials don't correlate as well with | expertise as one would hope. But even if credentials are an | imperfect proxy for expertise, they are probably better than | just trusting your gut in the absence of any expertise of | your own. | | > Pretty much the only field which hasn't been embarrassed by | an outsider of late is physics, [...] | | This seems an idiosyncratic take on the current state of | science to me. I've seen plenty of examples of a field being | embarrassed by insiders (e.g. the replication crisis of | psychology) or seen great results from experts who were not | particularly recognized by the system as set up (see Yitang | Zhang's work on the twin prime conjecture). What I don't | think I've seen is a field's dogma being overthrown by a | complete outsider. For the sake of my own calibration, I'd | welcome any examples of this. | kmeisthax wrote: | The existence of outsiders disproving consensus opinion with | a more-correct contrarian one does not mean every outsider | with a contrarian opinion is right. | na85 wrote: | >I am so sick of this 'stay in your lane' attitude. | | And I am so sick of the HN-trademark "I'm smarter than the | average bear" arrogance that you display here. Pick an | article about nuanced subjects like COVID vaccines, the 737 | Max, the law in general. Guaranteed the comments section here | has dozens of people incorrecting each other about semantics | of these subjects in which they are not domain experts. | | Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but your opinion is | worth less than that of a domain expert. | whateveracct wrote: | i think it's an appeal to not spouting answers when you | should be asking questions | jorblumesea wrote: | But there's really an entire class of people who have no clue | what they're talking about weighing in on things that they | clearly do not understand. | | It's one thing to study this in your own time and make | meaningful contributions. It's another to assume that simply | because you have an opinion, it's somehow valid. | dgb23 wrote: | I think it is useful, as it can imply that the experts have | some explaining to do. | | In this particular instance something seems to be | _fundamentally_ broken. | chosen1111 wrote: | Does medical advice fall into this consensus trap? | | If so...relative to today? | astrange wrote: | It is a good example of it, eg anything American doctors | would've told you about wearing face masks was wrong until | it wasn't (and the CDC director is still telling people not | to wear N95s), they still give terrible diet advice like | telling diabetics to eat more carbs, and so on. Doctors are | quite bad at making reasonable decisions when they don't | have an RCT in front of them. | chosen1111 wrote: | thank you for your candid and informative reply | | i always find it fascinating to hear people's take on | science and medicine | | especially when conclusions that have weight reach | politically hazardous territory | prepend wrote: | > CDC director is still telling people not to wear N95s | | This is an interesting point. The statement I read from | her is saying that N95s are hard to wear for long periods | of time, so people will wear them improperly. So the | overall adherence is higher with cloth coverings and have | a net higher benefit. | | She's not saying "don't wear n95s" she's saying "we don't | recommend it because..." | | This is an important distinction. | | Also N95s have to be fit tested to be effective. So | randos buying N95s and wearing them will frequently not | work. | VectorLock wrote: | >Also N95s have to be fit tested to be effective. So | randos buying N95s and wearing them will frequently not | work. | | I don't think this is true. No box of 3M N95 masks I've | ever bought has said anywhere "failure to fit test this | mask renders it ineffective." 3M Aura masks have an | instruction video on how to maximize the fit, but thats | just a bit on how best to adjust the little metal bit | that clamps around the nose. | | An ill-fit N95 that might not be perfectly adjusted to | conform is still way better than a cloth mask which isn't | intended to seal at all. | prepend wrote: | Not completely ineffective, but ineffective at filtering | the designed 95%. Here's NIOSH's page [0] defining fit | testing and why it's important. You don't see this | warning because it's on NIOSH's site, just like you don't | see the definition of all the stuff and just have the | certification is for your test. | | Some masks are just incompatible with some faces, it's | greaT that Aura's have an instruction video, that doesn't | mean it will work for all people. | | > An ill-fit N95 that might not be perfectly adjusted to | conform is still way better than a cloth mask which isn't | intended to seal at all. | | I think you're probably right. But I don't know of a | study that tests this because N95s are measured as | conforming to spec, not when they are worn improperly | without a seal at the nose and chin. I hope we get some | info on this. | | The Dirextors (and Fauci's) comments weren't about this | though, they mentioned how N95s are uncomfortable and | thus hard to wear consistently. Try wearing an N95 for 6 | hours of school. Especially without training. I think the | recommendation for cloth masks is because of the ability | for people to wear them. | | So the recommendation is not based around optimal | standards of use, but around likely use. | | This doesn't mean that N95s don't protect people. I wear | them in public. I'm just trying to correct GP's criticism | that someone the CDC director's comments are incorrect or | illogical. | | [0] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/di | sp_part... | astrange wrote: | > Also N95s have to be fit tested to be effective. So | randos buying N95s and wearing them will frequently not | work. | | That was the excuse doctors were giving me in March that | they all suddenly dropped. Are N95s without perfect fits | worse than cloth masks, which don't have fit tests | either? Are they better than no masks? Was Facebook wrong | to stock up on N95s for employees during wildfire season? | | > So the overall adherence is higher with cloth coverings | and have a net higher benefit. | | This is one of the worst things public health experts | seemed to just be totally wrong about. They were obsessed | with "risk compensation", where if you make things safer | in the wrong way people will act riskier so it doesn't | help. But this doesn't actually seem to happen. | prepend wrote: | > Are they better than no masks? | | This is the important question. Well are they? I've seen | a lot of people wearing N95s and almost every one of them | are wearing them incorrectly. Is this better than a cloth | mask? I don't know. But having huge gaps on the bridge of | one's nose where air flows is really bad to reduce risk. | And my favorite is seeing them work with beards that | prevent a seal. | | I can't find any tests of cloth mask vs bad n95. Saying | "common sense" as the reason is not a compelling reason | to try to get 300M people doing something. | Dirlewanger wrote: | Yup. Your average PCP/internist is good at one thing: | analyzing your symptoms and directing you toward someone | who _actually_ can help you. | | Not saying that a yearly check-up isn't beneficial (it | is), just that they shouldn't be prescribing Type 2 | diabetes medications on the spot (and getting kickbacks) | and instead should tell the patient to stop stuffing | their faces so much. | astrange wrote: | Well, the advice specifically is more like "dear Type 2 | diabetics, don't forget that if you eat less than 200g of | carbs every day, you'll die of heart attacks from that | evil saturated fat". | mumblemumble wrote: | Point #3 doesn't seem consistent with the idea that this is | just a "stay in your lane" attitude. "Lurk before you leap" | might be a better phrase. You've got to do at least a little | homework before you can understand a technical topic well | enough to make sense of what you're reading. | | I am less familiar with finance, but I see this all the time | when HN discusses legal matters. The conversation is almost | pure noise, because it's dominated by people who have so | little knowledge of the topic in question that they don't | even recognize a term of art when they're seeing one. Which, | in turn, engenders fundamental misunderstandings, and so the | whole conversation ends up being a sort of large-scale | trainer battle at the gym that specializes in strawman-type | Pokemon. | | Imagine if a discussion of programming were dominated by non- | programmers who are seemingly willfully ignorant that, in the | context, the word "functional" does not mean "designed to be | practical and useful, rather than attractive." | novok wrote: | Or to quote another software saying, RTFM | abakker wrote: | Truly a motto to live by. | jrochkind1 wrote: | When it comes to _how the authorities will act_ , is one of | the few places that appeals to authority are absolutely | reasonable. | | What do the regulations and laws actually mean and how are | they actually in real life enforced historically? Oh yeah | appeal to authority. We're literally talking about the | authorities. | | Laws and regulations -- and business arrangements and customs | -- aren't some kind of objective external thing to be | observed scientifically from first principles. That's the | whole error. Like if you can show a logical flaw you can | prove they are't really so because they must be logical! They | are socially constructed and the result of human action, by | people with the power to do so, for particular ends. They are | continually re-constructed by human action, they are | constructed _by the powerful_. | hazeii wrote: | Planck's Principle: "Science advances one funeral at a time" | [0] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle | feralimal wrote: | Great response! I agree. | NoOneNew wrote: | Hey, it's not market manipulation when you're an academic or | part of the oligarchy of experts with invested positions. | These people are to be cherished and flaunted on news media | to state their "unbiased" opinion of market movements. It's | manipulation when you're an average joe telling other average | joes to stick it to a firm that's trying to bankrupt another | company that's struggling through the pandemic. | young_unixer wrote: | > Builds a fantasy World of Wall Street from first principles | around that definition | | Haven't politicians and regulators been doing the same thing | for ever? | | Can't a normal person challenge that? | | Why should we blindly follow the narrative of the politicians | and regulators? | dalbasal wrote: | True (and funny) but, there's a lot of actual learning | happening too. Nothing like limit testing to understand a | system. | bigsteve90 wrote: | You got a good point. SV types like HM tend to be textbook | examples of Dunning-Kruger in action. | | 1. Read Wikipedia on another field 2. Decide, based on that | knowledge, that the field is "ripe for disruption" 3. Usually | fail miserably if parasitic ad tech isn't the core business | model | | Even politicians show more humility than these people. It's as | if typing into a computer makes them think they are omniscient | high priests. Most of them even have the gall to call | themselves engineers. We don't call machinists engineers, and | most programmers are digital machinists. | cambalache wrote: | > Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably | helped build | | I didnt know Vincent Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee et al were HN users. | bart_spoon wrote: | You are both constructing a strawman and appealing to | authority. Are you going for fallacy Bingo? | kibwen wrote: | In general it's good for people to be more aware of the fact | that, outside of a few narrow technical domains, HN users are | no less foolish, uninformed, and irrational as you those will | find anywhere else on the internet. | | Source: HN expert, to my continual shame. | literallyWTF wrote: | This is absolutely perfect. | sidlls wrote: | That is pretty accurate even for many software and tech related | discussions here (it's a big field with lots of specialties). | nvarsj wrote: | Yes, it's a reductionist argument that can apply to literally | anything. Let's just delete all user discussions on the | internet, and only allow PhD granted experts to discuss | things on panels where they must provide primary sources for | everything. | | Or you could simply point out when someone is wrong, and | explain why, assuming you are an expert. Then we all learn. | sidlls wrote: | I didn't mean to imply anything about who should be | permitted to post or the subject matter of posts. My | apologies that it came across that way. I simply meant it | as an observation. | | I could explain, as you suggest, and so could other | experts. In my experience the likelihood of a response with | denials, shifting goalposts or similar is much higher than | an acknowledgement and gratitude for education. I'll pass, | but others might enjoy the challenge. | Armisael16 wrote: | > Or you could simply point out when someone is wrong, and | explain why, assuming you are an expert. Then we all learn. | | That's pretty rare in online discussion, especially the | kind with voting. The most popular argument wins, not the | most correct one. | nvarsj wrote: | Yeah you're not wrong. I think HN is pretty good here | though - we do have genuine experts (on tech) that | correct people. That's why I value HN so much - I learn a | lot even when I make stupid, wrong comments. | esoterica wrote: | We shouldn't make fun of people for not knowing things, but | it's perfectly okay to make fun of people for being | narcissistic enough to think they are experts on a topic | and arguing fervently based on their shallow and distorted | understanding of the topic and hand when they are clearly | not. | philosopher1234 wrote: | You could interpret it as an insightful observation rather | than an argument to delete all comments. | egwor wrote: | I think it would be helpful if folk highlighted when they | don't know an area and are not experts. I think this is a | better way to do it because it is clear that the person is | trying to learn rather than spouting nonsense. Also, it | takes a lot of effort to correct people, and when emotions | are high this is a painful process. The RH post was a great | example of this. | | I've commented on some of the RH posts and got downvoted | because people didn't like the facts (and I think maybe | took it personally too). I've worked in Finance long enough | professionally to know that I don't understand this fully | and few people do. I do know enough to know when the | comments are nonsense though. | | I think that some of these issues comes down to respect and | also arrogance. Imagine going into a new field and after 30 | seconds deciding that you know everything (the Dunning- | Kruger effect?)! Have a little bit of respect for those in | the field and listen. Feel free to comment/ask, but don't | spout 'facts' without checking and I think we'd all move | forward faster. | egwor wrote: | Replying to myself to avoid edits. | | The other reason that listening and not spouting fiction | is a good idea is that it is a lot of effort correcting | people d that effort could otherwise be spent elsewhere. | Folk have good will, but there's a finite amount that | shouldn't be wasted! Once that's run out they look to use | their time effectively. Correcting you /again/ won't be | up high on the list. | esoterica wrote: | Number 2 is obviously false, a HN commenter would never have | enough self-awareness to feel dumb. | klodolph wrote: | > 3. Too busy to use the very internet which some of them | probably helped build to magically render learning materials to | the screen in front of them at zero marginal cost. | | I will say that I'm not too busy for this at the moment, and | getting to my _very basic_ level of understanding has required | me to sort through, at the very least, a fairly decent chunk of | reference material and reading interpretations and explanations | online. | | Like, here's some things I've been grappling with understanding | recently: | | How do settlement risk, clearing brokers, and clearinghouses | work? Why does buying an ordinary stock carry so much | settlement risk? | | Why do market makers buy stock for delta hedging? How do they | figure out how much stock to buy? | | To make an analogy, it feels like I'm some kid in chemistry | class who just learned how to draw bond diagrams, and then I | watch a video of someone talking about how they figured out the | structure of some chemical using Raman spectroscopy. | alexpotato wrote: | So maybe I can help a little with the above: | | - prior the 1980s, when you bought a stock a physical stock | certificate was passed back and forth between your broker and | the broker selling the stock | | - as you can imagine, as trading volumes increased this | became unmanageable. In fact, at one point, the exchanges | would close every Wednesday just to give people time to catch | up on all of the exchange of certificates | | - everyone, rightly, agreed that there needed to be a better | way and the idea of a clearing house emerged. In this model, | all of the physical certificates lived in one place. | Ownership was tracked via a central "database" (originally | not electronic). This made it MUCH easier to transfer | ownership aka "settle". This is very similar to how gold is | traded e.g. the NY Fed holds it for other countries etc | | - An added benefit of a clearing house: it's easy to see how | much everyone owns of everything. e.g. if one party is over | leveraged or has gone extremely short, in theory, the | clearing house can choose to not deal with that party or, | more flexibly, request additional capital etc. | | Here is also a specific example about settlement risk: | | - let's say you report all of your trades to your clearing | broker (think of them as a mini-clearinghouse) | | - a data file gets lost or corrupted and the clearing broker | says "Wait! Something is wrong! We are not letting you trade | until we get this figured out!" | | - EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT and they are wrong, you now have | market risk because you may be holding a position that is | losing you money. So much money in fact that it might drive | you out of business. | | The above is an actual answer to a settlement expert when | asked "What is your nightmare scenario?". This in turn, could | have ripple effects to other clearing brokers and trading | firms and is generally all part of "settlement" or "clearing' | risk. | | Source: have worked in fintech trading for many years. | tlholaday wrote: | Thanks for the crystal-clear example. | dlubarov wrote: | Thanks for the background info. Why can't the database be | updated ~instantly though? Is it just because of legacy | systems that handle settlement in periodic (daily?) | batches? | | Also, couldn't a broker eliminate this risk by just making | assets "unavailable to trade" until they've been settled? | Granted, I understand why brokers wouldn't want to do that | under normal circumstances, but it seems like something | they should be able to enable when liquidity becomes a | problem. | | To me, "Your cash can't be spent yet because the TSLA sale | you just made hasn't settled" would seem a lot more | understandable than "We're halting GME purchases". | alexpotato wrote: | > Why can't the database be updated ~instantly though? Is | it just because of legacy systems that handle settlement | in periodic (daily?) batches? | | The legacy systems reason is a big one. There are banks | with mainframes built in the 80's as part of the critical | infrastructure. Another reason is that everyone doesn't | communicate directly with the main clearing house. e.g. | brokers clear with other brokers who then clear with the | clearing house etc. | | > To me, "Your cash can't be spent yet because the TSLA | sale you just made hasn't settled" would seem a lot more | understandable than "We're halting GME purchases". | | There have been interesting solutions to disputes. e.g. I | think it was NYMEX that had a rule for floor traders | along the lines of "If Trader A and Trader B have a | clearing issue, NEITHER of them gets to trade till it is | taken care of." Given that these traders traded with each | other multiple times a day coupled with they were making | no money during this dispute, both parties were | incentivized to come to an agreement. | seabird wrote: | Not an expert myself, but I've been interested in the field | for a while. | | The clearinghouse ultimately moves the security and money to | their right place, and allows brokerages to let each side | move on faith that everything will be right once the dust | settles. On settlement risk, a key point is that there | usually _isn 't_ a huge amount of risk. This is why DTCC is | nearly imperceptible for retail players. In this case, the | volume and short situation is so extreme that clearinghouses | are getting antsy that there may not be enough of the | securities available to actually make good in the end, so | they're twisting arms at brokerages and requiring they have | 100% of it on-hand so that there's no surprises when they go | to officially give the buyer their security and the seller | their money. This is obviously very expensive, which is why | brokerages started limiting buying of volatile securities, | have had to take out money to get 100% hedge on these trades, | and why RH is allowing trading of volatile securities but | only in volumes of 5. | | Market makers buy stock for delta hedging because if they | don't, they could get caught out and either deliver at a loss | or not be able to deliver at all. Figuring out how much you | need is a trick of the trade; if you or I knew what their | strategy was, their position could be in danger. | mcguire wrote: | Speaking as a long term value investor who is mostly | noshing po'corn and watching, I have a couple of questions: | | Don't the settlement worries provide evidence of naked | shorts? (Naked shorts being selling a share without being | sure the share would be available at settlement? And naked | shorts illegal?) | | Wouldn't the normal procedure be to halt all trading until | the issues had cleared up? As opposed to allowing positions | to be closed, but not opened? | seabird wrote: | Naked shorts are not impossible, especially if you're | talking about naked call options. They're comparatively | rare (being illegal just means you get fined if you get | caught, it's really "not that serious" for a big player), | and small timers aren't allowed to participate, but | they're not impossible. An even bigger point than that is | that the short doesn't necessarily have to be naked in | the _legal_ sense for you to fail to deliver, especially | when a security has gone completely Texas like GME has. | | This situation is rare. Halting all trades is very scary | for all parties involved. It's way worse for just about | everybody than asking brokerages to have 100% collateral | is. | w23j wrote: | > Why do market makers buy stock for delta hedging? How do | they figure out how much stock to buy? | | From | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the- | ga...: | | _The market maker has sold you an option that goes up in | value as the stock goes up. The more the stock goes up, the | more the market maker owes you. It hedges this by buying | something else that goes up in value as the stock goes up-- | specifically, stock. Its option pricing model--the Black- | Scholes formula or a related model--tellsit how much stock to | buy; that output is a number called "delta" and ordinarily | expressed as a percentage. Delta is the sensitivity of the | option price to the stock price; the higher the delta, the | more the option behaves like stock. The more in-the-money the | option--for a call option, the higher the stock price is | relative to the strike price--the higher the delta will be. A | loose, nontechnical, incorrect but still sometimes helpful | way to think about delta is as "the probability that an | option will end up in the money." A 100-delta option is so | far in the money that it is sure to convert into stock, so it | 's just stock. A 0-delta option is so far out of the money | that it can't possibly convert into stock, so it's just | worthless. A 50-delta option is roughly at-the-money--a | $50-strike call when the stock is trading at $50--and could | go either way. The more stock-like an option is, the more | stock the market maker will buy to hedge it. Here,Bloomberg's | OV page computes a 37.57% delta for the Jan. 29 $50 call as | of last Tuesday; I rounded up for ease of use._ | | If you are remotely interested in these kinds of things I can | heartily recommend reading Matt Levine (https://www.bloomberg | .com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...). He's at the same | time educating and entertaining and what is more leaves out | all the bile and negativity that is connected to these topics | in other places. Gamestop is covered in recent issues. | ryandrake wrote: | Whenever I read about a topic that I don't know much about, | part of me is always wondering if the writer is throwing all | these exotic words and greek letters in there because they | are really an essential to understanding the topic, or | because they just want to over-complicate it to sound smart | and blow their own horn. | | On one hand we have Occam's Razor: "the simplest solution is | almost always the best." On the other we have "For every | complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and | wrong." How does one know which to apply? | klodolph wrote: | I don't know how you could possibly reason about options | without understanding delta, and gamma makes sense to me | too since it's just the derivative of delta as the | underlying value changes. | colejohnson66 wrote: | As a math person, I've never heard "gamma" to mean the | derivative of a change (a delta). For example, I was | always taught that speed is v=delta-x/delta-t (distance | over time). I've _never_ heard gamma to mean that. | klodolph wrote: | Speaking as a math major, gamma means, like, a million | different things. It's just a letter. There are only 26 | latin letters, 24 greek letters, the capitals, and then a | few oddities like blackboard bold, fraktur, cursive, etc. | You run out pretty quickly and end up reusing letters. | | Just like pi means different things in different | contexts. It might be a permutation, projection, a | function which counts prime numbers, or it might be half | the period of sin. I might write p(10) = 4, or p [?] | 3.14..., or for p in P, etc. I might say that p is the | right inverse of i, in other words p[?]i = id, and point | to some digram with a bunch of arrows. | | Delta is not just "a change" in this context. It is | specifically the rate of change of an option's value with | respect to the value of the underlying security. Just | like pi, delta and gamma mean different things in | different contexts. | csmiller wrote: | Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_(financ | e)?wprov=sfti1 | ZephyrBlu wrote: | Financial markets and derivatives are just complicated. | | There seem to be a lot of moving parts, and a lot of | possible outcomes. | wj wrote: | Two books that I might recommend for others that are | interested are: | | Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for | Practitioners (cost of this on Amazon seems to have more than | doubled since I bought it 11 years ago) | | Algorithmic Trading and DMA: An introduction to direct access | trading strategies | [deleted] | sandworm101 wrote: | >> 6. Builds a fantasy World of [X] from first principles | around that definition | | That is most every online discussion these days. I would only | add "first principals learned at highschool and/or undergrad". | The real scientists/lawyers/doctors with deep backgrounds in | fields, the ones who dare to talk online, stand out like sore | thumbs. | hatsunearu wrote: | And then there's another guy writing smug 8-point steps! Truly | the pinnacle of hacker news culture. | notahacker wrote: | tbh I thought I'd have to go to n-gate to get this take on | recent discussions... | TeMPOraL wrote: | You're fined for violating the Prime Directive! | | That said, when I saw that top comment I thought for a | second I've confused the domains, this sounded like | something taken straight from there. | listless wrote: | Honestly disappointing that trolling is the top comment here. | This is the kind of thing that we should hold each other | above doing. | hatsunearu wrote: | The comment isn't without substance but yeah, could have | had better delivery | dang wrote: | Please don't respond to a bad comment by making the thread | even worse. This is also in the site guidelines, which | include a very clear statement of what to do instead: | | " _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them | instead._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | christiansakai wrote: | And then there's another guy who will comment on the comment | of guy writing smug 8-points step! internet karma wohoow! | iamacyborg wrote: | Choo choo. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Is it dang time? | whateveracct wrote: | my favorite topics this gets applied to are physics and rocket | science. | | it's amazing how many HN physics comments start with "my | theory" | [deleted] | cblconfederate wrote: | It's because "ze nerds" have rebuilt multiple industries that | were "too hard to understand", because they work bottom-up, | from first principles and reject gatekeepers. They 've even | created an entire substitute version of the 'conomy which | currently most people are mocking, but soon will be using | daily. | DataWorker wrote: | When someone tells you not to believe what you read on the | internet, on the internet. | kodah wrote: | Personally, I think smart people just _do_ this. When I got | sick with COVID I cannot begin to describe the number of people | who became doctors _during this unprecedented time_ , only to | send me outdated comments, articles, and speculation. | | All of these people thought they were smarter than the | instruction I received from a _real_ doctor, nurse | practitioner, and the CDC. These were smart people, though, and | mostly (but not limited to) highly educated engineers. | robntheh00d wrote: | Sympathetic response is a thing. | | One has to balance that with awareness they're talking out | their ass. | tacitusarc wrote: | I absolutely agree with the main thrust of your comment, but | I want to point out that in unprecedented times specifically, | the odds that a smart non-expert is more correct than an | expert are substantially higher than in normal times. | mcguire wrote: | ... but still not particularly high. | Tenoke wrote: | I saw plenty of smart people ahead of institutions and real | doctors on masks and to some extents other aspects of the | pandemic. | | Yes, in general if you don't know much on a topic you'd on | average do best if you listen to the experts but you can | outperform that if you can identify the right kind of smart | people with a good track record. | mcguire wrote: | I saw plenty of smart people ahead of institutions and | experts on hydroxychloroquine here on HN. They were wrong. | | Smart people with a good track record are generally called | "the experts". | Izkata wrote: | That is the single most frustrating part of the pandemic | for me: | | * There was preliminary evidence from the experts it | might work. | | * At some point Trump got wind of this and mentioned it. | | * The media, in an effort to portray Trump as wrong, went | on a crazy cherry-picking campaign to show HCQ as | completely ineffective. "HCQ does not work" was the | prevailing sentiment for almost the entire past year | because of this, even though evidence was still coming | out it does work under certain circumstances. | | * Now that Trump is out of office, our understanding of | HCQ is shifting back to exactly what that preliminary | evidence said that Trump repeated. | mcguire wrote: | * https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2 | 665-9... | | " _They included 30 569 patients with systemic lupus | erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis who were already | taking hydroxychloroquine in the 6 months before what was | considered as the start of the pandemic in England and | 164 068 patients with these rheumatic diseases who did | not use hydroxychloroquine. The study found no | significant difference in standardised cumulative | COVID-19 mortality associated with hydroxychloroquine use | (0*23% among hydroxychloroquine users and 0*22% among | non-users) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1*03 (95% CI | 0*80-1*33)._ " | | * https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical- | trials/202... | | " _Among patients exposed to patients with SARS-CoV-2, | hydroxychloroquine, administered within a median duration | of 2 days as post-exposure prophylaxis, did not reduce | the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection within | 14 days, compared with placebo (vitamin C)._ " | | * https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research- | matters/hydroxy... | | " _Researchers assessed each patient's condition 14 days | after being assigned to a treatment group. They used a | seven-category scale ranging from one (death) to seven | (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal | activities). The results showed no significant difference | between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups. The | scientists also found no differences in any of 12 | additional outcomes, which included mortality 28 days | after assignment to a treatment group or time to | recovery. Based on the data, they concluded that | hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment._ " | | * | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772921 | | " _Several published rigorous studies have demonstrated | similar findings. In the well-conducted clinical trials | published to date, hydroxychloroquine has been evaluated | in a wide variety of populations, ranging from patients | with severe illness2-4 to individuals at risk of severe | acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) | infection, in whom the drug was used as primary | prophylaxis5; these studies failed to show any beneficial | effect of the drug. This raises the question: How did | medicine get to the point where so many studies were | conducted assessing the possible benefit of | hydroxychloroquine, that led to nearly identical | findings, and have been published in major journals?_ " | | * https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926 | | " _Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who | received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower | incidence of death at 28 days than those who received | usual care._ " | | * https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6935a4.htm | | " _New prescriptions by specialists who did not typically | prescribe these medications (defined as specialties | accounting for <=2% of new prescriptions before 2020) | increased from 1,143 prescriptions in February 2020 to | 75,569 in March 2020, an 80-fold increase from March | 2019._ " | | * https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/27/oklahoma- | attempt... | | " _Oklahoma tries to return $2m worth of | hydroxychloroquine_ " | | Under what circumstances does it work? | nemo44x wrote: | "Right kind of people" have no accountability to their | advice. A doctor can't really just hazard a guess without | actual facts to base them in or risk losing their ability | to practice and/or reputation. "Right kind of people" can | be and are often plenty wrong about things but it fades | into obscurity and they are never held accountable. | | Of course they are right sometimes but on many issues with | a binary choice (should or shouldn't wear masks) that's a | 50% chance. | | In the long run you want to be able to discern hearsay, | opinion, and rumors from facts and accountability to them. | | You see it today when inquiring if a pregnant woman should | get the vaccine. Doctors won't really advise you because | although they maybe feel it's totally safe if you're far | enough along, they would be held accountable if something | happened. They can be "pretty sure" about things, but that | isn't enough. Meanwhile, "very smart person" on Twitter can | reference a bunch of content from unaccountable people that | says it's safe and come off as an expert when they aren't. | It's easy to be "right" when you don't have skin in the | game and especially so when no one is going to hold you to | account for all the times you were wrong or misinformed. | DennisP wrote: | Last spring I was briefly lectured by a maskless doctor | who said I shouldn't bother with the mask I was wearing | at an appointment. I shrugged and kept my mask on. A | month or two later I saw him again. He was wearing a mask | that time and didn't complain about mine. | | That doctor didn't just avoid guessing. He gave | unsolicited advice, on limited information, that turned | out to be exactly wrong and somewhat dangerous. | Tenoke wrote: | >A doctor can't really just hazard a guess without actual | facts to base them in or risk losing their ability to | practice and/or reputation. | | No, but one doctor might base advice on one study he saw | another on a different one. Having skin in the game helps | but it is also well documented that doctors might be | overly cautious due to risk of litigation and thus | sometimes chose suboptimal courses of action. | | >Of course they are right sometimes but on many issues | with a binary choice (should or shouldn't wear masks) | that's a 50% chance. | | No, this isn't a real coinflip. There's evidence for and | against things like this, and some people have learned | better than others how to evaluate such evidence and can | definitely do better than 50%. | xapata wrote: | > a real doctor, nurse practitioner, and the CDC | | Sadly, many doctors and nurses are statistically illiterate. | I know, because I (try to) teach them statistics. Remember, | the Surgeon General of the CDC said that, "[masks] are NOT | effective in preventing general public from catching | #Coronavirus," perhaps in some misguided belief that avoiding | panicked mask-buying was more important than a mask-wearing | public. | | [Sorry for insulting our healthcare heroes, but ... evidently | y'all haven't been responsible for teaching them evidence- | based medicine. It ain't easy.] | iso1631 wrote: | > The CDC was parroting the anti-mask blather of the Trump | administration | | And the WHO were too? | xapata wrote: | Sorry, edited after you wrote this. I took out the | reference to the Trump administration because it wasn't | helpful to the main point of many doctors not being | experts on epidemics. | DanBC wrote: | Can you link to the papers that were available in March | 2020 that showed that masks are effective? | | Use any definition of "mask" and "effective" you want, but | preferably effective should include some concept of | "prevents spread of respiratory disease". | | Covid is a serious illness. Far too many people have been | told, and believe, that they can continue their normal day | to day life so long as they put mask on. This is untrue, | and this advice has driven mass infection and death. | newt_slowly wrote: | This comment from early March links to several. | | https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/fdf5fq/we_a | re_... | TeMPOraL wrote: | This is a pandora's box. My recollection of the events is | this: around March 2020, there were some links to | somewhat shoddy studies of effectiveness of masks in case | of other diseases, but the official statement was that | masks were not _proven to be effective_ - but that 's | because there was no randomized control trial performed | to check mask effectiveness against SARS variants, and | _how could there be_? | | This spins off into a whole discussion of how evidence- | based medicine can lead you off the cliff when you follow | its letter, and not spirit, because despite something | being bloody obvious, there is no RCT proving that. | compiler-guy wrote: | My favorite example: | | "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related | to gravitational challenge: systematic review of | randomised controlled trials" | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ | DanBC wrote: | > but that's because there was no randomized control | trial performed to check mask effectiveness against SARS | variants, and how could there be? | | The argument was not "we can't do tests because this is | new", the argument was "we've got dozens of studies | across a range of settings and respiratory diseases | (which we expect to act similarly to covid) and we | struggle to see any benefit, until we drop the quality of | the research down". | TeMPOraL wrote: | IIRC the argument was "we can't say it works because we | have no relevant tests _at all_ ". That's what I remember | from March, but I may be misremembering. | kgwgk wrote: | Like this? | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/ | DanBC wrote: | Yes, exactly like that. | | > We concluded that household use of face masks is | associated with low adherence and is ineffective for | controlling seasonal respiratory disease. | | "Do masks work, if you use the right type of mask and | wear it properly?" isn't particularly controversial (the | answer is probably "yes") but it's a stupid question | because we don't care about optimal use, we care about | real world use. And in the real world people _might_ | improperly wear a mask and go outside when they 're | symptomatic. | | We don't have much good quality evidence for that, but | here's a study that showed people were prepared to do | things like wear masks, but were less prepared to self- | isolate or book a test if they had symptoms: https://www. | medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.15.20191957v... | kgwgk wrote: | The sentence following the one you quote says: | | "However, during a severe pandemic when use of face masks | might be greater, pandemic transmission in households | could be reduced." | | Later: "Although our study suggests that community use of | face masks is unlikely to be an effective control policy | for seasonal respiratory diseases, adherent mask users | had a significant reduction in the risk for clinical | infection. [...] Adherence with treatments and preventive | measures is well known to vary depending on perception of | risk and would be expected to increase during an | influenza pandemic. [...] Therefore, although we found | that distributing masks during seasonal winter influenza | outbreaks is an ineffective control measure characterized | by low adherence, results indicate the potential efficacy | of masks in contexts where a larger adherence may be | expected, such as during a severe influenza pandemic or | other emerging infection." | xapata wrote: | > link to papers | | No, I can't. Can you link to papers that show flossing is | effective? Probably not, but the mechanism is so obvious | that essentially all dentists will tell you to floss. | Further, mask-wearing was already a well-established | practice in medical settings to prevent the spread of | respiratory disease from practitioners to patients. | | > believe that they can continue their normal day to day | life so long as they put [a] mask on. This is untrue | | Combined with some coordination on travel restrictions | and quarantines, it seems Taiwan has been able to keep | that normal day-to-day life for the majority of | Taiwanese. | | https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/01/08/taiwan- | covid-19-p... | rcpt wrote: | > flossing evidence | | That was a thing a few years back: | https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/tossing- | flossing-2016081... | legolas2412 wrote: | And let's not forget WHO actively advising against travel | restrictions. | | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who- | chie... | DanBC wrote: | > Further, mask-wearing was already a well-established | practice in medical settings to prevent the spread of | respiratory disease from practitioners to patients | | We don't see much benefit there, either. See the "clean | surgery" papers. | xapata wrote: | The evidence would have to be overwhelming that it's not | helpful, because the prior is so strong. | at-fates-hands wrote: | There's been ongoing debate about the effectiveness of | masks to prevent the spread of the influenza virus for | years now. There were a lot of studies after the H1N1 | pandemic since mask wearing was "recommended" but to my | knowledge no state or federal mask mandate was put in | place. | | Here's a paper from 2010 after the H1N1 pandemic. | | Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a | systematic review | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and- | inf... | | _Our review highlights the limited evidence base | supporting the efficacy or effectiveness of face masks to | reduce influenza virus transmission. An important concern | when determining which public health interventions could | be useful in mitigating local influenza virus epidemics, | and which infection control procedures are necessary to | prevent nosocomial transmission, is the mode of influenza | virus transmission between people and in the | environment._ | | The interesting thing is everything they recommend, we've | adopted during COVID, including physical barriers and | front line workers additional PPE equipment: | | _Physical barriers would be most effective in limiting | short-distance transmission by direct or indirect contact | and large droplet spread, while more comprehensive | precautions would be required to prevent infection at | longer distances via airborne spread of small (nuclei) | droplet particles [19]. In healthcare settings, stringent | precautions are recommended to protect against pathogens | that are transmitted by the airborne route, including the | use of N95-type respirators (which require fit testing), | other personal protective equipment including gowns, | gloves, head covers and face shields, and isolation of | patients in negative-pressure rooms_ | | There's five additional studies referenced in the MedPub | doc: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/ | | A current Danish study concluded masks don't reduce the | spread of the virus: | | Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other | Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in | Danish Mask Wearers | https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 | | _In this community-based, randomized controlled trial | conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon | and was not among other recommended public health | measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a | surgical mask when outside the home among others did not | reduce, at conventional levels of statistical | significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with | no mask recommendation._ | | People are already debunking this Danish study but here's | a CDC study showed even when people do wear masks, they | were still getting sick: | | Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with | COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults >=18 Years in 11 | Outpatient Health Care Facilities -- United States, July | 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5 | -H.pdf | | _In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case- | patients and 74% of control participants reported always | using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in | public," the report stated._ | | _In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said | they "often" wore a face covering and were still infected | with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 | percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus | even though they "never" wore a mask or face covering._ | | Personally I feel like masks aren't stopping the spread | mainly because people either use one or two masks | continually without cleaning them daily, or put them on | dirty surfaces thinking its ok and then putting them back | on, or simply not wearing them over their nose. Masks | _would probably_ be effective if people wore them | properly and only used them once. Hoping 300 million | people all follow those simple rules is a bit hopeful to | say the least. | [deleted] | xapata wrote: | > Hoping 300 million people all follow those simple rules | is a bit hopeful to say the least. | | There seems to be something different about the US | population than, say, the Taiwanese population regarding | mask usage. I don't have a good explanation for it, | because I think blaming "culture" is lazy research. | mcguire wrote: | I've posted links before, and I'll try to find them when | I'm not on my phone. But you're right. | | It was an open question, but the general opinion before | 2020 was that masks would not be particularly useful. | Sketchy results started appearing in March with better | days in April and May. Several experts said, "we were | wrong." | | Medical grade masks are very useful. Others are less so. | But they primarily prevent you from giving the virus to | others. | mcguire wrote: | Engineers, in particular, have a reputation for being experts | on everything. | glitchc wrote: | _perceived_ :D | lioeters wrote: | I think "self-perceived expert" fits well. | | "When Knowledge Knows No Bounds: Self-Perceived Expertise | Predicts Claims of Impossible Knowledge" - Stav Atir, | Emily Rosenzweig, David Dunning | | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761558 | 819... | dmurray wrote: | To be fair, professional medical advice was especially low- | quality in the early days of the pandemic. What was important | was public health messaging, picking some lowest-common- | denominator messages and having everyone repeat them. It | wasn't hard to be better informed than that. | phkahler wrote: | >> To be fair, professional medical advice was especially | low-quality in the early days of the pandemic. | | They primarily suffer from dogma IMHO. For example, now | they know people with breathing difficulty should be kept | in prone position. I dont know if that applies outside of | Covid19, but I thought it was really interesting to see | them learn it. Like "oh, what we'd normally do is bad but | this variation is good". | | Medicine also suffers from a fear (justified) of | litigation. If they dont follow accepted practices they may | get sued if someone dies. The funny thing with Covid was | watching that fear when there was no accepted treatment. | Seeing them say "The FDA hasn't approved that for covid" | when they hadn't approved _anything at all_ yet. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > Medicine also suffers from a fear (justified) of | litigation. | | very US-centric. Medical litigation in many others parts | of the world doesn't work in the same way, and isn't a | driving force in the way medicine is practiced. | hrktb wrote: | I agree in principle. Then in real life example you will have | real doctors and nurses giving conflicting advices and having | wildly different viewpoints on the details. | | The easy to point to example is how a lot of doctors viewed | masks at the beginning of the pandemic. Or how trickle down | economics is also endorsed by experts. Or experts opinions on | mental health drugs. And so many other subjects where it | won't be hard to find an expert on the dumb side of the | argument. | | I think we should rely on experts, but we can't dismiss | people's doubts or research just with a "I've seen a real | doctor" slight of hand. | scythe wrote: | >Or how trickle down economics is also endorsed by experts. | | Trickle-down economics is not explicitly endorsed by | _anyone_ , because it's a pejorative. That's like saying | "totalitarianism is popular in some countries"; _you_ might | think those countries are totalitarian, but _they_ don 't. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > you might think those countries are totalitarian, but | they don't. | | "You" in the above is a specific individual. | | "They" in the above is undefined and extremely imprecise. | | For various definitions of "they", your statement could | be true, false or somewhere in between. | mjburgess wrote: | Indeed. Even then, as a term, it refers to a specific | regan-era tax policy. | | What many on the left assume it means, is a sincere | description of growth "raising the tide"; and how | ridiculous an idea _that_ is. | | Of course the tide has risen to an unprecedented degree | in human history both since the term "trickle down" was | invented; and moreso, over the last 40 years. | mikestew wrote: | _Even then, as a term, it refers to a specific regan-era | tax policy._ | | The term was coined by Will Rogers about 90 years ago. | opo wrote: | The usage goes further back then that. The first use was | in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan in his Cross of Gold | speech: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics | stonogo wrote: | Except the tide you're describing is _global_ , and the | policy in question was _domestic_ , and wages and assets | within the middle and lower economic classes have indeed | stagnated in relation to almost every other economic | indicator _within the country_ , which is why "many on | the left" consider this argument to be invalid. | mjburgess wrote: | This just isn't the case. And it _dramatically_ isn 't | the case. | | This is a side effect of using the same category terms, | but not talking about the underlying distributions. | | Eg., in the UK, 80% of the country were industrial | working class or poorer until 1980s; and middle class | only _started_ at top 5%. | | Today, the "industrial working class" level of wealth, is | the bottom 20% _at the very most_. | | So if you hold the class terms fixed, "middle class" it | seems the 80s top 5% has "stagnated", only to fail to | mention, it now 60% of the country. | | If you hold the distributions constant, the wealth level | acheived in the top 5% in 1980s is now a _majority_ of | the population. | kodah wrote: | The problem, to me, isn't peoples curiosity or attempting | to broaden their horizons. I think the outcomes of this are | largely good; it encourages discerning people to exercise | caution and makes for good light conversation. Where things | get off the rails is when people believe their tentative | research or association with a domain makes them | authoritative in some sense. | | I read the same waffling about masks you did, the | information I read (since it was inconsistent) led me to | believe that I should wear masks more than directed. I did | this out of an abundance of caution because at the time | early research eerily concluded that not much is known | about the longer term effects of this virus, there was | stark contrast in the symptoms various people had, and that | there were layers to exercising prevention. I acted in a | similar manner when I limited my social circle. | | The difference in the way, I think, these people used much | of the same information that I did is that it became | authoritative to them. After they'd read enough articles | straight from the CDC it made them feel qualified to | interpret them. I'm reminded of one guy who demanded I get | another PCR test before he hung out with me, even after I | hadn't experienced a fever for 10+ days. For some context, | when I got sick I came back negative on both tests I was | given. I was later told my viral load was not high enough | on those days, ironically these also happened to be some of | the worst days of the virus. It was only after I lost taste | and smell that the doctors realized I had COVID. My friend | cited all the reading he had done as evidence that I just | wouldn't accept his "perspective". When I asked the doctor | about getting both PCR and an antibody test she responded, | "Do you have an actual reason? We already knew you were | sick." In reality, the time which I would've been | contagious had long passed, yet my friend couldn't get it | out of his mind that transmission was a possibility. | | Another example is a friend whose brother had gotten COVID | a few months back. His symptoms were certainly worse than | mine. Where I didn't experience much trouble breathing, he | did among other things. I went on a walk one day because it | was one of the days in between being sick that I had some | energy and wasn't overcome with brain fog. I shared that I | was exhausted after this short walk and that I'd probably | stave off a walk for a few days to see where I was at. She | chastised me for going on a walk, explaining that her | brother had been told not to exercise for three to six | months, and that it seemed as if I was taking COVID as a | joke. What I realized after googling this specific | treatment plan is that it's usually given to people with | some form of cardiomyopathy and other conditions (none of | which I have.) I am now about 3 weeks removed from having | COVID and I'm back to riding my bike, which is consistent | with what my doctor told me. My doctor told me recovery has | a lot of variables and I'll need to go at the pace that I'm | comfortable with and listen to my body. Regular checkups | should help to that end as well. | | The theme among these people is when I tried to explain | what doctors had told me and why I was going to stick to | what they were saying (more generalized as drawing | boundaries) I was met with harsh rejection. The key here is | that authoritative sources were no longer respected. The | fact of the matter is that doctors _do_ take a bit to | arrive at consensus and that can be frustrating to a public | opinion that is waiting on them for their own sanity, but | just because you landed on the correct conclusion a couple | times (or even a more conservative solution that kept you | equally safe) does not make you an authoritative source. | So, I 'm not going to tell people to stay in their own lane | but you can't just go lecture people based on your own | understanding. That's when you forget that all of this | information you gather outside of your own domain is good | for _exercising caution and light conversation_. | hef19898 wrote: | Conflicting doesn't mean that one, or both, opinions are | wrong. There is more than solution to every problem. | ta1234567890 wrote: | > Then in real life example you will have real doctors and | nurses giving conflicting advices and having wildly | different viewpoints on the details. | | Exactly. Real life example - someone I know asked her | doctor about getting the Moderna covid vaccine while | pregnant. The doctor not only said it was ok, but also | verbally recommended it and gave her a written paper to | help her get the vaccine. She was able to get it a couple | days ago. Then yesterday the World Health Organization | announced that pregnant women should not be getting the | Moderna vaccine because they were not included in the | trials. | | So who's right here? It's hard to trust a "real doctor" | when something like this happens. | | It also happens that, doctors in particular, barely see you | for 5-15min, that is not enough time for them to fully | understand what is going on with you and your whole | history. It's only enough time for them to make a quick | judgement based on their pattern matching abilities from | their own experience and then give, an educated, | recommendation. But they are not really vested in you in | particular, you are just one more, and if their | recommendations don't work for you, they usually don't | really care and won't go down the rabbit whole with you, at | the most they'll just refer you to someone else. | pas wrote: | But that ... that's not exactly incompatible. The WHO | makes very simple blanket statements that are safe in | general. | | A doctor usually looks at an individual. (And we know a | lot of pregnant women got infected with COVID. We know | that hospitalization was higher for them, but also that | mortality is the same - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/ | 69/wr/mm6925a1.htm?s_cid=mm... , so the immune reaction | should be the same too) | | The real problem is that it's impossible for a non-expert | to gauge the expertise of any of these entities (your | full-sized real-life walking-talking doctor who you know | for a deacade, the WHO and anyone in between). Even | simply asking many questions is just the illusion of | getting informed (not just because there's rarely any | time for proper answers as you mentioned), but because | the answers are biased, so this naturally biases the next | question too. (Unless there's enough time and effort to | go through years of science and try to falsify whatever | theory is being communicated with very targeted | questions, it's close to useless/futile effort.) | | > But they are not really vested in you in particular, | you are just one more, | | Yep. Agreed. Also usually primary care physicians are | better at "bedside manner" and pattern matching than at | real medical science. (Because it's not really their job | to have 20 doctorates in every subfield of biology.) | mcguire wrote: | " _how a lot of doctors viewed masks at the beginning of | the pandemic_ " | | Ok, so I've looked into the history of this a little, and | most of the mask mythology seems misunderstood. | | Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most | viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be | transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research | where the data had not come in. | | About late March, it began to appear that the virus could | be an aerosol. Hard results did not come in until April and | May, and many in the field discovered they had egg on their | faces. | | Conflicting advice is to be expected with new information. | kevstev wrote: | Yeah, I think what a lot of people going on TV failed to | really express is that there was so much unknown about | this new virus, that this is the best information we have | to go on RIGHT NOW. And then when that changed, they | didn't make it explicit enough that they were changing | their advice based on NEW DATA. Partially this is just | the soundbite driven media, where even if it was | explained, that often doesn't make the 10 second clip | replayed. | | My company had a zoom conference with a very well | respected British doctor, he won something more or less | equivalent to a nobel prize in mediciine, and he told my | company, on May 4th, that masks are not necessary. This | was already a bit head scratching, but what I feel he | probably meant, but certainly did not explicitly say- is | that its not a priority for an individual to wear a mask | when there are shortages for front line workers. | | But mix a changing message with an inbred resistance to | being told what to do and the inconvenience of a mask, | and this comes out the end for many as "They don't know | what they are talking about these "experts!", I don't | need to listen to them, they can't get their story | straight!" and here we are... | edbob wrote: | > My company had a zoom conference with a very well | respected British doctor, he won something more or less | equivalent to a nobel prize in mediciine, and he told my | company, on May 4th, that masks are not necessary. This | was already a bit head scratching, but what I feel he | probably meant, but certainly did not explicitly say- is | that its not a priority for an individual to wear a mask | when there are shortages for front line workers. | | This comes off as blatantly lying to us for our harm, not | "they don't know what they're talking about". If someone | lies to you _and knowingly puts your life at risk through | the lie_ , it's very rational not to believe anything | they say in the future. This is not mere mixed messages. | | If government and/or experts want to have non-negative | credibility, they are going to have to start consistently | telling the whole truth. | cactus2093 wrote: | Do you have sources for your claims? | | I've also looked into it a little and come to the | opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in | 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and | 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ | Masks have also been shown to provide protection against | the common cold (many strains of which are also | coronaviruses) and seasonal flus | https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds- | flu.htm... | | In the absence of more specific information about SARS- | COV-2 early in the pandemic, surely it would have made | sense to default to using the preventative measures that | were known to be effective at controlling SARS and other | known respiratory diseases? Especially when these | measures come with no real risks. | | It's true that they didn't know with 100% certainty, and | China's misinformation about human to human spread in the | beginning and not allowing the CDC team in early to | investigate certainly didn't help either. Maybe these | experts, including Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO, just made | what turned out to be very bad judgement calls and they | honestly thought that masks wouldn't prevent the spread | of the disease. But by far the likeliest explanation in | my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the | public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying | masks, and I still find that to be absolutely | unconscionable. | mcguire wrote: | Here's my previous comment: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 | | https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s | 128... [2019] | | " _In summary, despite the various mechanistic arguments | about which organisms can be potentially airborne and | therefore aerosol-transmissible, ultimately, the main | deciding factor appears to be how many studies using | various differing approaches: empirical (clinical, | epidemiological), and /or experimental (e.g. using animal | models), and/or mechanistic (using airflow tracers and | air-sampling) methods, reach the same consensus opinion. | Over time, the scientific community will eventually form | an impression of the predominant transmission route for | that specific agent, even if the conclusion is one of | mixed transmission routes, with different routes | predominating depending on the specific situations. This | is the case for influenza viruses, and is likely the most | realistic._" | thereare5lights wrote: | How does this address the assertion that there's already | been research out of Asia that says masks are effective | against these kind of viruses? | grahamburger wrote: | > But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that | these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an | attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, | | As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," | the advice was "stay home." If they said "go buy masks," | that would mean leaving your house to get a mask, which | would directly contradict the more important advice of | staying home. Also if they said wear a mask when you | leave the house it would have been interpreted as "it's | ok to go on with normal events as long as we have masks" | which wasn't the message they were trying to send, | either. The message was stay home, and at the time it was | probably the right message, and not a lie. | dragonwriter wrote: | > As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," | the advice was "stay home." | | There was "stay home" but also "stop buying masks because | you are stopping medical, first responder, etc. personnel | from getting them and they aren't useful for the general | public" during the initial PPE supply shortage and | hoarding. | | This wasn't a lie, AFAICT, but Aa statement that was | completely correct public health statement in the context | it was given that was widely interpreted as an individual | health statement. | thereare5lights wrote: | I definitely remember a lot of talk from experts saying | non-surgical masks don't work and that surgical masks | should be saved for medical professionals. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | My frustration is that, here in Canada at least, there is | still an outdated way of talking about the virus as if | it's a surface / hand sanitation issue, and much of the | public policy (especially around school openings, etc.) | still seems to be ignorant of the absolutely essential | role that shared air has in transmission. Public | authorities have failed to really drive home the reality | of the virus, and instead we get sanitation theatre, a | pantomime of virus control, and parents clambering to get | schools reopened (while the numbers plummet since they've | been closed after Christmas) | | Example, a local wine shop in my small town where you are | not allowed to touch the bottles, but I see the staff | inside with their masks off when there's no customers in | the store. | | Frankly, I think people really just don't _want_ to | believe it's aerosol transmitted. Because the | consequences for public policy would be so drastic; no | malls, no factories, no schools, etc. should really be | open if you admit it. | cthaeh wrote: | If you go to ontario public health website and read their | summaries on current covid papers, you'll note that the | vast majority of papers come to the conclusion that | schools have almost no impact on the spread of covid. | | But no, keep applying youre second grade logic: spreads | through air-> indoor places unsafe-> CLOSE EVERYTHING. | | That's not to say some of it isn't security theater (ie | my parents were washing cookie boxes with soap some a | couple of months ago), but those measures aren't being | driven by the public health, but rather the unrelenting | fear mongering of the media. | astrange wrote: | It's possible that it's just been so long since we had a | bad respiratory pandemic that medical advice assumes | everything is food poisoning and norovirus, where | cleaning surfaces actually does matter. | | But it's also possible they'd have to admit grandma-type | adages about opening the windows actually work and office | buildings don't let you do this anymore. | astrange wrote: | > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most | viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be | transported as aerosols. | | That's most American medical professionals. And they | mostly seemed to believe you would get yourself sick | faster by touching your eyes after taking the mask off | wrong, or that masks provided 0% protection unless you | wore an N95 with a fit test, or that if they didn't lie | about them being useless people would steal them from | hospitals. They certainly didn't believe they were truly | useless, since they were all wearing them for procedures. | | Actually, wasn't the excuse for suddenly being like "face | masks are good actually" that they didn't know COVID had | asymptomatic spread before then? That's even worse than | not knowing it spread through aerosols. | | > This was a subject of research where the data had not | come in. | | By using the technique of "not assuming all of Asia is | primitive and superstitious", it was easy to figure out | what to do without an RCT. Note there isn't evidence that | surgical masks help during surgery either. | dang wrote: | " _Please don 't sneer, including at the rest of the | community._" | | " _Be kind. Don 't be snarky._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | If you know more than others, that's wonderful. Please share | some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. None of what | you wrote here helps anyone learn--it just puts others down, | makes you sound supercilious, and makes the community worse. A | comment like this stuck at the top of a thread, letting off | fumes and polluting the environment with meta nastiness, is one | of the worst things that can happen on HN. No one intends it to | happen--I'm sure you had no such intention, nor did the | upvoters, but it's the default that we co-create on the | internet unless we consciously do otherwise. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=share%20know%20learn%20by:dang... | | If you just pour acid on stuff that you scorn, it may get | heavily upvoted because everyone is feeling anger and scorning | others is a way to relieve that feeling--but you can't pour | acid without pouring it on the commons, which is extremely | fragile. By getting upvoted, the damage you cause is amplified | 1000x. People posting here need to take care of the commons, | the same way none of us would pour toxins into a mountain lake, | leave campfires burning in a dry forest, or litter in a city | park. | | I totally get how frustrating, nay maddening it is when others | are wrong and ignorant on the internet and self-satisfied about | it. But being a good citizen on HN means learning to tolerate | the pressure and metabolize the irritation this activates in | you. Then you can come back to the commons with a response that | builds it up--for example with interesting, relevant | information--rather than tearing it further apart. | | Our brains are hard-wired to weight painful impressions--like | internet comments that seem dumb or wrong--much more heavily | than pleasurable ones, like comments we agree with. This makes | it feel like HN is dominated by wrongness and dumbness and | meanness to a greater extent than it actually is. We all need | to become more aware of this mechanism (especially by observing | our own reactions more closely) so we don't destroy this place | by making the mistake of feeling like it's already been | destroyed. The truth is that it's hovering precariously in | between. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=notice%20dislike%20by:dang&dat... | | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=demons%20by:dang&dateRange=all... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 | robntheh00d wrote: | Everyone's brain is a time series database of experience, | with a variety of heuristic shorthand's built in. Presuming | they should all consume and process information the same way | is arrogant. | | Perhaps take some of your own advice; one comment in this | thread has not damaged HN. | | Consider; for me OP did not leave as painful an impression as | the helicopter parenting and scolding that followed. Trigger | the Streisand Effect at your own risk. | dang wrote: | I don't think I disagree with any of that. But if you're | implicitly arguing that more of the GP would be just fine | for HN, then I do have to disagree. | | Moderation comments are an unfortunate evil. To some extent | they do the very things we're scolding others for. I don't | feel very good about that and I'd love to find a better way | --especially because they're even more tedious to write | than they are to read. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tediou | s%20write%20read%20by:da... Unfortunately, the system | doesn't regulate itself with community and software | mechanisms alone. There needs to be a moderation mechanism | as well, i.e. humans who are giving the system their | primary attention and giving feedback to it. I'd never | claim that the way we do it is the only way or the best | way, just that it's better than nothing. | | While I have you: could you please stop creating accounts | for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do | that. This is in the site guidelines: | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. | | You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be | a community, users need some identity for other users to | relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and | no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dan | g... | DSingularity wrote: | Dang, I like you dang. | archibaldJ wrote: | been loving HN for 8 years (n coming!) mostly due to the | self-constraints commentators here generally have on the | amount of meta-nastiness they (accidentally/intentionally) | leak out | | and as the population grows am hugely thankful for the | moderation too | relaxing wrote: | I feel like "resist the urge to post claims about concepts | outside your domain/grasp" is clear, actionable advice that | improves the community. What if you spent more time policing | that, instead of policing of tone of people trying to make it | better? Take care of the commons earlier, and then these type | of posts wouldn't be necessary. | | I'm not sure why you would question the intentions of the | upvoters - do you believe they don't understand how the | upvote system works? It seems clear they had every intention | of promoting OP's message and forcefulness with which it was | delivered. | dang wrote: | There are other ways to make such points which don't break | the site guidelines. You're ignoring the damage to the | community that I'm writing about, which is much more | important. Massive, low-information, vicious flamewars are | the biggest existential threat to the community. | | I don't believe that either the commenter or the upvoters | wanted an off-topic flamewar to be pinned at the top of the | most popular thread on HN's front page. That would be | malice! Outcomes like this happen on the internet, not by | deliberate malice, but because a large number of small | contributions--usually made without much attention, and | without thinking of the overall health of the community-- | compound into a damaging outcome. | caffeine wrote: | It's a humorous injunction that could be gainfully posted at | the top of most controversial threads. Nothing wrong with | warning people against bias and groupthink. Especially when | the matter is deeply technical and outside of most | participants'expertise. | dang wrote: | From my perspective it's more important to protect the | commons from going up in flames. | | Generic warnings about "bias and groupthink" have no | helpful effect anyway, let alone snarky putdowns of others. | Apart from adding off-topic noise, their main effect is to | polarize the audience into a "like and agree" tribe and an | opposing "dislike and disagree" tribe. Then the two go | after each other in increasingly nasty and unthoughtful | ways. | | If you actually want to reach people you have to do it | differently. If you (I don't mean you personally, but all | of us) don't actually want to reach people, but just to | vent bile, that's not what this site is for, and there are | other places to do it. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | TLightful wrote: | TL/DR: You're a HN Genius. | | Appreciate your generosity. | johnfn wrote: | Can we not write posts like this? The air of superiority | without actually offering any insight doesn't contribute to | interesting discussion. | loljeffbee wrote: | That's Step 9: lament posts that shatter the shared fantasy | as disruptive to the forum. | at-fates-hands wrote: | I have to admit, this wasn't me to a tee, but I did initially | believe manipulation of any kind - whether you do so to push | the price up or down is illegal. My basis for this was from | several friends who have been financial planners for 10+ years | and two have lived off day trading for more than 15 years. | | Then I had a few people tell me, "Nope, its called a "short | squeeze" and totally legal. Then I had to go back and do some | research on how short squeezes work. Then I found several | instances where this had happened, just not nearly as public | because of social media. | | The small amount of research opened my eyes to the fact even | though something may seem illegal, in the finance world, | there's a lot of gray areas and details most people will never | know about until something like this happens. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Cynical? | | Thoughtful people who have been on this planet for decades | build up a world view based on the countless examples of actors | on the world stage behaving the way that they do. A single | article or internet search is not how we are informed. | glitchc wrote: | I don't know where this perspective comes from. Reading the SEC | note suggests that they are actively investigating or looking | to actively investigate to see if there was market | manipulation. No conclusions made as of yet. | | When the market wildly diverges from steady state operations, | this is an entirely reasonable thing for the SEC to do. An | unstable market hurts the average person far more than a stable | one. | Nasrudith wrote: | Yeah it is essentially just a boilerplate post that just says | "We heard and are looking into it" essentially. It will | probably be months to years after the event for them to | conclude who if anyone rose to the level of illicit market | manipulation or other offenses and who would be responsible. | Robinhood was at risk of being fined by the SEC for their | infamous infamous leverage glitch as opposed to the users. | (Not sure if it ended in a real fine as the media lost | interest post patch.) | gjsman-1000 wrote: | "The Commission will closely review actions taken by regulated | entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly | inhibit their ability to trade certain securities. In addition, | we will act to protect retail investors when the facts | demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is | prohibited by the federal securities laws. Market participants | should be careful to avoid such activity." | | This should scare the crap out of Robinhood from what happened | yesterday. | youkoulele wrote: | Why would the SEC punish Robinhood for not having enough | collateral to trade very volatile stocks. | adjkant wrote: | IANAL but some possible reasons: | | 1. For lying about that reason to customers | | 2. for not shutting down all trading on their app (allowing | sells of GME without manipulated the market, even if blocking | sells would also have bad effects) | | 3. For allegedly tipping off Citadel before shutting off GME | trading (unconfirmed but they will likely investigate this | claim) | youkoulele wrote: | Yeah it's worth investigating if they are at fault | somewhere. | | But many people seem to think that the SEC will punish them | simply because they stopped allowing people to buy more | GME. | zamadatix wrote: | I think everyone knows it wasn't simply that though, | hence the outrage. | sneak wrote: | It specifies _trading activity_. I read this as a warning to | WSB, not their brokerages. | AznHisoka wrote: | People who are anti-robinhood thinks it's a message to RH. | | Those who are anti-WSB thinks it a warning to WSB. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Might be both. | elliekelly wrote: | It definitely is. The next sentence specifies _market | participants_ which would include both WSB and hedge | funds. | acegopher wrote: | No. WSB is not "a regulated entit[y]" that "disadvantage[d] | investors or otherwise unduly inhibit[ed] their ability to | trade certain securities". Robinhood is and did. | FabHK wrote: | I'd say you might be wrong on both counts: | | 1. preventing people from buying GME at, whatever, $300 | might not have been disadvantaging them, and | | 2. it might not have been _unduly_ inhibiting their ability | to trade, but _duly_ so. | franklampard wrote: | You are so biased because you think GME is overvalued at | $300. | | Your bias even makes you defend Robinhood's action to | disable cash accounts buying certain stocks as DULY. | | Wow | jeffbee wrote: | That's the first part but the second part is a separate | statement against market manipulation generally. In the | law, manipulation is forbidden to anyone, not just brokers | and dealers. | SaltyBackendGuy wrote: | > we will act to protect retail investors when the facts | demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity | | Specifically calls out retail investors (i.e. WSB). I read it | the opposite way, but I can see how it could be interpreted | as a warning to both. | jasonjayr wrote: | It boils down where and who did the manipulation? | | 140% shorts, including naked shorts from Melvin? | | RH stopping buys but allowing sells? | | Conclusive proof that Citidel put their finger on the | scales to force RH's actions? | | WSB's members constantly chanting hold/diamond hands/ride | to the moon? | | There's a lot at play, and further examination will make | for a good post mortem... | interestica wrote: | There's a weird aspect of meme-as-protection. It's hard | for a regulating entity to cite memes and seemingly | offensive speech. | nerdjon wrote: | > actions taken by regulated entities | | WSB isn't regulated, that is companies like Robinhood | rich_sasha wrote: | WSB is not a regulated entity, but presumably Robinhood is. | kgwgk wrote: | The "trading activity" is in the "in addition" sentence, it | doesn't have to refer exclusively to regulated entities. | ysw0 wrote: | Quant firms made more money then WSB did trading on the | momentum I'm sure. Do you really think retail was the only | one pumping? | SaltyBackendGuy wrote: | Hopefully it's more than posturing and that there will be | action taken to back up this statement. | avs733 wrote: | And their investors...this could (not will, could) end up being | a fairly easy case for piercing Robinhood's corporate veil. | | Good on the SEC for stating they stand with retail investors, | even if it ends up being hollow it sure is nice to hear them | say it. | elliekelly wrote: | Absolutely not. On what theory? And on what grounds? There's | no such thing as "a fairly easy case for piercing the | corporate veil". | avs733 wrote: | Lack of separation? If it turns out they did take any | direction on this from anyone holding a short position in | GME I would imagine RH is fully and completely screwed, as | are their investors. | | this is all hypothetical, which is why I used the word | _if_. If they did what WSB is accussing them of, which I | think is probably doubtful, RH is in really really big | trouble... | throwaway4good wrote: | "Abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by | the federal securities laws." | | Is that aimed at "professional hedge funds" or self-proclaimed | "autists" in an internet forum? | ChrisRR wrote: | The big traders probably have friends in high places, so I | suspect they're going after WSB and not wall street who | caused the issues in the first place. | TeMPOraL wrote: | With the amount of media attention WSB has been gaining, | this is setting itself up for "Wall Street versus The | People" situation. It may be politically tough to go | against the retailers now, particularly mid-pandemic and | with all the other political comorbidities US is suffering | from. | fnimick wrote: | If after bubble pops it's shown that an elite group of | WSB traders made huge profits while a large amount of | retail traders lost their entire investment, I think | there's going to be plenty of public appetite for nailing | the market manipulators to the wall. | mrkramer wrote: | This is not about "Wall Street versus The People" or | WallStreet vs Retail (small investors) it is about | federal securities laws. And you know where the law is? | In court. I think court needs to decide whether what is | WSB doing illegal or legal. | mrkramer wrote: | I think court needs to decide whether what is WSB doing | is* illegal or legal. | Izkata wrote: | It's been that for a while. Lots of people on social | media have been framing it as another Occupy Wall Street, | except this time they've figured out how to make the | elites hurt. There's plenty of people who don't care how | much they lose when it bursts, because Wall Street is set | up to lose more. | throwaway4good wrote: | I know of cases from the Danish market where the financial | service authorities went for people who had tried driving | the price up in a pump and dump scheme for a small penny | stock. Using internet forums and a couple of trading | accounts. | | They made a few thousand dollars and got months in jail for | it. | | The problem with wsb is that it has gotten so big and there | are too many involved at this point. | vinceguidry wrote: | It's not really that the government can't go after WSB. | Sure they're not going to prosecute 2 million | degenerates, but it's not like they can't round up 50 of | the big names to make a statement. | | It's that there's really no appetite in the federal | government for going after retail traders. Retail trading | as an industry took a very long time to build and ham- | fisted enforcement could tank it harder than a few | lawsuits ever could. | | Make no mistake, this was going to happen eventually. | There's infinite ability to gather information, infinite | ability to share it. Retail collusion was inevitable. The | people who built the industry knew it was going to | happen. They prepared for it. Everyone, including the | SEC, knew it was only a matter of time before something | like this happens. | | Denmark did that because there's much greater financial | regulatory capture than there is here. | throwaway4good wrote: | Yes. This stuff (market manipulation using internet hype) | is so easy to do that they need to make an example. | | I am very certain that most of retail traders who buy GME | at 400 will end up losing money. | mariodiana wrote: | There is no "probably." It is well-known that people leave | their civil servant jobs at regulatory industries, after | putting in their time, and bring their know-how and | connections to big banks and hedge funds in return for | cushy salaries. | nsonha wrote: | Worked in a broker in Australia, our head of compliance | is a former ASIC (the Australian regulator) employee. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | It's aimed at both, presumably. It's not like hedge funds | have never gotten in trouble for abusive trading practices. | bilbo0s wrote: | This. | | It's clear that everyone should be lawyering up depending | on what positions they had when they started pumping this | idea to the masses. That said, I'm a big believer in "a | fool and his money". If there are hedge funds or retail | investors out there who, perhaps, didn't understand all the | risks of what they were doing, protecting them from their | folly only causes more problems in the future. | | As horrible as this sounds, now is the time to let everyone | fail. Hard. If we don't, no lessons will be learned. | stonecraftwolf wrote: | IANAL, but to me it seems like it would be very difficult | to convict retail investors of investing in a stock they | believe has value and then telling other people they | invested in a stock they believe has value. Unless there | are chat records of a few redditors coordinating an | astroturf campaign while twirling their mustaches or | whatever, I don't see how this could be aimed at retail. | | Regulated entities who have access to tools or | information not available to retail investors, or who | applied financial pressure to manipulate access to the | markets, or did not disclose conflicts of interest...that | seems like a much easier case to make. | vorpalhex wrote: | It's also not as if hedge funds are employing thousands | of welders or craftsmen. These are high risk financial | strategies by people who qualify as professional traders | - "I didn't know" isn't an excuse anymore. If they lose | the game, they get to eat their losses. | | We will probably see a few retail traders get burned, and | I suspect anyone wanting to do trading in the future is | going to have to fill out more disclaimers. | jeffbee wrote: | Maybe not hedge funds but I estimate that the majority of | what laypeople call "hedge funds" are not hedge funds. | There are tons of firms that just run money for ordinary | people. At my old firm they have shorted blackberry in | thousands of individual margin accounts, and those | accounts are losing money on paper and might have to | realize losses in order to rebalance their risk. | vorpalhex wrote: | I'd have some questions if my low risk or medium risk | investment firm was making large shorts. Shorts are very | risky for a whole bunch of reasons - which is also why | they can be high value. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure | every high risk fund can find at least one pensioner | invested in them, but if your firm is well known for | shorting then you can't pretend to be anything but high | risk/high reward. | jeffbee wrote: | These aren't large positions and that is the point. If a | short position that was 2% of your account suddenly | becomes 10% of it, now you have a problem, and the | problem wasn't caused by a wrong investment thesis, it | was caused by a mob of kids online. | newsclues wrote: | The problem is that when hedge funds get in trouble they do | not go to jail, are not prohibited from doing business and | the penalties (fines) are ineffectively weak. | | Given the track record of holding the powerful accountable | is terrible, I don't think this is directed at hedge funds | but is a warning to the little people. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | It's common for hedge funds (and more importantly, the | people who run them) to be prohibited from doing | business. "Barred from the securities industry" is the | term typically used if you're looking for examples. | newsclues wrote: | True. | | But why does this sort of thing seem to be the norm? | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.C._Capital_Advisors | dcolkitt wrote: | > The problem is that when hedge funds get in trouble | they do not go to jail | | Criminal prosecution is held to a much higher evidentiary | standard than civil fines. Almost all market related | crimes, including manipulation and insider trading, | require mens rea. Proving state of mind beyond a shadow | of a doubt is _really_ difficult to do. Especially when | the defendant is sophisticated enough to know the law and | have access to high-quality legal advice. | | Any US Attorney would absolutely love to have the feather | in his cap of sending a billionaire hedge fund manager or | investment banker to prison. Hell, the reason Rudy | Giuliani is a household name is because he managed to do | that. But no prosecutor is going to bring a case that he | has no chance of winning. | | Given that it makes much more sense to target enforcement | with civil fines rather than criminal prosecution. You | can tie up your resources to fight expensive, hard to | prosecute criminal cases. Or you can quickly settle for | reasonable fines, and cover many more cases with the same | set of limited resources. | marcosdumay wrote: | > actions taken by regulated entities | | That's clearly not about random people commenting on an | internet forum. | | It may still be about specific people commenting on an | internet forum, but those people would know it's about them. | [deleted] | boublepop wrote: | It is aimed at the people who shut down buying GME, then | tried to create a downward trend at unusual low volumes to | try to scare the wallstreet bets crowed into abandoning their | positions in GME to allow short positions to recoup their | gigantic losses. | | It failed mind you. The shorts are still bleeding and the GME | hold is continuing though just at a slightly reduced price. | | Retail investors who have bought GME can afford to wait out | the antics of hedge funds, but those funds are on borrowed | time to try to turn the loss of a century into some kind of | win, or they are done for good. Ask yourself, who do you | think is trailing the borders of legality? A teen who goes | "hmm GME at 100$? Sure why not, I'll take 10" or the | hedgefond manager calling all his friends to stop trading | because his fund is going bankrupt on a stupid bet he made | that he would have gotten away with if it wasn't for those | meddling kids. | esoterica wrote: | This is QAnon/Kraken/Dominion level crankery. The MAGA | types are happy to believe in voter fraud conspiracy | theories with no evidence because they hate the Democratic | party, and here you are doing literally the exact same | thing here except replacing "Deep State" with "hedgefond | managers". | | People like you make fun of the QAnon-types but you're just | as willing to indulge in deranged evidence-free conspiracy | theorizing as long as it accommodates your ideological | priors. | zamalek wrote: | Shorting more than 100% of the stock is excessive and | irresponsible. That figure is not a conspiracy theory: it | is public information that the SEC releases monthly. | | Whether hedge fund managers did make a call to their | buddies is not the only thing in question here (although | the SEC will surely determine the truth). Shorting a | stock drives the price down and, while this is no less | legal than buying a stock, the question is whether | shorting 136% of the stock counts as outright | manipulation. Reddit kids have done nothing but pop an | artificial bubble, they did not participate in | manipulation; as the hedge fund managers and their | buddies claim. | | > QAnon | | I have yet to see the baby cookbook or other evidence of | their ridiculous claims. | esoterica wrote: | The parent commenter claimed that brokerages were | colluding to drive the price of GME down to benefits the | shorts. That is QAnon-level evidence-free conspiracy | theorizing. The clearing houses were demanding more | collateral and brokerages couldn't afford or didn't want | to put it up. | | > whether shorting 136% of the stock counts as outright | manipulation | | I refer you to the snarky top comment about how all the | Dunning-Kruger victims who claim manipulation do not | actually know what manipulation is. Shorting a stock is | not manipulation and neither is lots of people deciding | to short a stock. 136% of the stock is shorted because a | lot of people were shorting it, not because Some Guy | decided to single-handedly short 136% of the float. | | > Reddit kids have done nothing but pop an artificial | bubble | | So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at | $500? Really? | zamalek wrote: | > So GameStop was an artificial bubble at $10 but not at | $500? Really? | | Did I claim that? I wouldn't touch GME with a barge pole. | beagle3 wrote: | IB claimed to have hiked margin to 100% which is a | reasonable response. However, I have heard from many | sources that they in fact rejected buy orders even with | cash - which, if true, and I have every reason to believe | so, makes any explanation about margins and technical | reasons seem ridiculous. | | There is surely some deeper non public reason that every | single retail broker - but no single institutional broker | - stopped accepting GME buys but kept honoring sells. It | might or might not be a call from hedge fund buddies, but | it is still likely illegal. | | When I was working at a hedge fund, I once executed a few | hundred mil notional on a supposedly anonymous exchange, | taking advantage of an obvious counterparty mistake. | | Within 10 minutes, I got a call from said counterparty, | telling me that next time I do that, they'll make sure | I'm kicked off the exchange. | | Anonymous my ass. Legal my ass. And yet, it happened - | I'm sure I wasn't the first or the last - the other side | kept making those mistakes. I stopped taking advantage of | them. This kind of behavior is rampant in Wall Street. | Only difference is it has been done now in the open, very | visibly, and with thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - | identifiable victims. | swader999 wrote: | In other news there are reports of men in $4,000 suits with | shovels and pick axes working above New York's many fiber optic | lines. | malwarebytess wrote: | Robinhood says that they basically couldn't fulfil the buy | orders because they ran out of money, or couldn't fulfil the | orders without breaking the rest of the platform. I imagine | whatever the reason there's going to be lawsuits. | josephorjoe wrote: | Whatever else happens, Robinhood should not survive this. | | They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their | customers should leave them. | | And I will be completely unsurprised if when the dust settles | it turns out they acted illegally. | | Also, they suck at lying. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I don't agree. I think they provide a valuable service they | should stay whole IF they can fix their capital issue and | make their customers whole. You didn't forsee what was | happening and neither did I because it was unprecedented. | If not let them sink, someone will provide a similar | service and learn from it. The SEC shouldn't be in the | market of shutting down companies because a new phenomenon | happened, let the market do that, unless something illegal | has occurred. | josephorjoe wrote: | I don't think the SEC should shut them down. | | I think they should go bankrupt because their customers | leave them for one of their many more reliable and | trustworthy competitors. | gruez wrote: | >They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their | customers should leave them. | | They did? That might be the case according to the Popular | Narrative (that the Hedge Funds phoned them and said "shut | it down"), but reality is that they couldn't front the | deposits for the customer's trades, due to the insane | volatility. In that case it's less violating their | customers' trust and more having a product that couldn't | handle extreme circumstances well. They are a _discount_ | brokerage after all, some compromises had to be made. | TeMPOraL wrote: | The narrative doesn't matter. It's a PR problem. Lots of | people wanted to buy GME, then RH suddenly cut them off, | offered no reasonable explanation, and then their CEO | went on the news to just spew some content-free noise. | Sure, there were reasons behind this ban, perhaps good | reasons - but they weren't explained by RH, and RH to | this moment didn't even admit to the cause of the | problem. | | Sounds like solid ground for loss of user trust to me. | | See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25957097. | deelowe wrote: | The CEO said they couldn't cover deposits. He only | started spewing nonsense when the obvious question about | RH having liquidity issues came up. He didn't lie to | retail RH clients, but he may have lied to RH investors. | Then again, it's funded by private equity, so it's likely | they know all this. | | All of this makes sense given the emergency cash infusion | of 1B RH got this week. | tootie wrote: | As has been stated elsewhere, it is easier to recover from | alienating customers than it is from running afoul of the | SEC. They ran a very real risk of being forcibly shut down | by regulators if they didn't slow trading. | Robotbeat wrote: | I don't agree. See Tesla. Elon frakked up with the SEC | but not his customers (or his fans) and so Tesla a couple | years later is on top of the world. I doubt Robinhood | will survive this. They built their whole brand around | rallying for the little guy at the expense of the fat | cats. It's literally their name. | scythe wrote: | Tesla isn't an investing firm. They don't even really | have much in the way of acquisitions yet. Tesla would | have to do something pretty blatant to really piss off | the SEC. Elon's $420 tweet was greeted with a slap on the | wrist precisely because "you're new here, aren't you?". | | The better analogy would be if SpaceX pissed off the FAA. | kchr wrote: | Tesla actually made an official statement on their | website about going private within 24 hours of the tweet. | That's what reduced it to a slap on the wrist. | whimsicalism wrote: | That's an absolutely awful argument. Elon Musk rich so | don't have to bother with the SEC? | Robotbeat wrote: | Nope. The question was whether it's worse (in terms of | recovery time) to crap on the SEC or your customers, and | in which case you'll recover faster. Elon frakked with | the SEC and rightfully had to pay a price for it. But | they recovered quickly. I don't think Robinhood will. | | The best thing is to not frak with either the SEC or your | customers. And that's probably always an option, even if | it might mean sacrifice. | monadic3 wrote: | > As has been stated elsewhere, it is easier to recover | from alienating customers than it is from running afoul | of the SEC. | | Oh did the SEC decide to grow a spine? | iamacyborg wrote: | You may want to check what happened to certain brokers on | Jan 15th 2015 before you start chucking accusations out. | It's clear you don't understand how these brokers work and | how they interface with the broader market. | cannabis_sam wrote: | Is this the Swiss Franc thing? | iamacyborg wrote: | Yep. | josephorjoe wrote: | It is completely clear that they betrayed their | customers' trust. | | I know some people think "but that's not illegal so they | did nothing wrong". Those people are bad and should feel | bad. And I think in this case enough customers are angry | that robinhood will not escape the consequences of its | actions. | | I only said I would be unsurprised to learn they acted | illegally. | | I admit the "suck at lying" thing is more my opinion than | fact at this point. | maxfurman wrote: | Do Robinhood's terms guarantee that their users can buy | any stock at any time? Does Robinhood in any way ask or | imply that their users cannot use another service? I'm | just not sure what trust they betrayed here. | lixtra wrote: | Trust is not covered by terms. | adaml_623 wrote: | Why would you post that without including information | about the event and brokers you are referencing. You're | not really adding to the information content on this | site. | | I assume you were talking about this event: | https://www.leaprate.com/forex/liquidity/algo-traders- | worsen... | iamacyborg wrote: | Because if people are going to start playing these games | they need to do the bare minimum of research. Their money | is literally on the line. | renewiltord wrote: | And you should read about how that was dealt with in July | 2017. | franklampard wrote: | Source? | xd1936 wrote: | They over a day to say that. Instead, they decided it was | clearer to say "we're temporarily restricting trading due to | volatility". If what you said really was the issue... Why not | just say that? They're a startup. They'd be forgiven. Why | hide behind vagueness? | partiallypro wrote: | I do agree that they bungled the whole thing badly, but I | also think they were probably trying to prevent a run on | their accounts when they were already cash strapped. | linuxftw wrote: | It's a highly regulated industry. Brokers can't just take | actions. Perhaps they hit some regulatory corner case and | nobody knows how the SEC is going to react. | [deleted] | temp667 wrote: | There is really only one simple concept needed to understand what | the SEC cares about. | | When a big hedge fund is selling a stock short, they can do so | without even borrowing it. As a result, the buyer ends up not | owning it and the stock fails to deliver - called a fail. | | There are a lot of easy penalities that could be applied here. | Reprice based on lowest price in intervening period prior to | deliver. Provide a 10% rebate per day if not delivered T+3, up to | perhaps a 200% rebate. Etc. | | But instead, nothing happens, the fail to deliver just continues. | I took a look at Gamestop on the fail to deliver list. It's been | there forever. | | I don't trade, but the whole fail to deliver game seems rotten. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_to_deliver | hikerclimber wrote: | this has to do greed of wall street and I have no remorse for | hedge funds failing. karma is a bitch ain't it. but it should be | illegal to disable chatrooms for reasons when before they were | allowed so wall street could profit from it. we no longer live in | a free market most of it is controlled. | fairity wrote: | I don't understand the current lessons being drawn by the public | from this situation. | | I don't think shorting stocks (even to 140% of its float) is a | bad thing. And, the hedge fund managers that shorted GME don't | deserve to be bankrupt. | | Shorting stocks, in general, is a beneficial action for the | market because it helps prevent shares from becoming overvalued. | | The problem that GME highlighted is that it's too easy to | purposefully trigger a short squeeze. | | One possible solution seems to be that the SEC should make it | easier to borrow shares to short a stock. And, in so doing, they | should make it harder to purposefully trigger a short squeeze. | | There's nothing wrong with greed if it doesn't hurt others...The | SEC's ultimate goal should be to have a fair and efficiently | priced market at all times. In this case, it seems like the party | that needs to be protected is the hedge funds....What am I | missing? | nairboon wrote: | is this satire? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-29 23:00 UTC)