GME: Or, why we shouldn't underestimate “4chan with a Bloomberg terminal”

Re:GME: Or, why we shouldn't underestimate “4chan with a Blo... by LatteLazy on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @08:26PM (#25923148)

The difference is they expressly coordinated (a no-no) to change the price (a no-no).

There is nothing wrong with saying "X is a good stock, buy it". Saying "I don't really know about stock X, but if we work together to drive prices up we can make money when we dump the stock" is all sorts of illegal.

>"we somehow coordinated and we stuck with it"

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/kwkle2/gme_...

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying a case will definitely be made. Maybe it will be judged not worth the effort or politically unpalatable (going after the little guys). Maybe they had much less impact than they\we think and there was actually some other entity behind it.

But if there is a case to be made, those are the key elements:

* They conspired together

* Their aim was to manipulate the market (move the stock price).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GME: Or, why we shouldn't underestimate “4chan with a Blo... by bmcn2020 on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @02:20AM (#25925275)

But there's a problem for me -- how do you prove that this particular comment has validity? It's Reddit -- you can shitpost whenever you want. Trolls run rampant. It'd be easy for WSB mods to simply state that all those comments/examples that the SEC is presenting are just trolls and has nothing to do with WSB. A Reddit forum is far too loose to be accused of any coordination.

Edit: typos

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GME: Or, why we shouldn't underestimate “4chan with a Blo... by bobthepanda on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @08:54PM (#25923346)

I don‘t think there‘s precedent for a major SEC action against a bunch of small investors on this scale. It sounds like a logistical headache.

[ Parent | on HN ]