https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm. Control plus F "short squeeze". Intentional short squeezes like what is happening in GME is illegal.

Thank you, I’ve been reading about this all day but this is the first time I see this referenced.

I guess the billion dollar question is, legally: does buying stocks in anticipation of a short squeeze, and communicating the same to others, count as manipulation?

> a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.

The question I think would rotate around whether this is 'a scheme to manipulate', or simply identifying an opportunity to capitalise on Melvin's greedy position.

> capitalise on Melvin's greedy position

Oh please. As if whoever has their thumb on the social media scale isn't greedy. Greed runs the street in longs and shorts. You can invest modestly by diversifying and avoid all that.

Of course. But the point I'm making is that in my opinion, the demand is being generated by Melvin themselves by having a position with so much risk, it's not artificial demand.

Intentional would be the key word. Would it be easy to prove it was intentional?

I don't know enough about this subject to form an opinion on the legality and morality of what's hapenning right now but if the only rub is whether the squeeze is intentional or not I recommend that you have a peek at the wallstreetbets subreddit right now. It's very much intentional and out in the open.

very interesting link, thank you. The exact language is

> 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.

It seems like the key question is what qualifies as a scheme. To me, it seems like you need some kind of secrecy or deception.

Also, can you use Clojure to cause a short squeeze, or... [ducks]

Indeed. It was all done out in the open. Someone said "if enough people buy and hold, there will be a short squeeze. For this reason, I'm long GME", which probably doesn't represent a scheme or manipulation, it's just simple facts.

The article doesn’t explain why it’s illegal.

It doesn't need to?